Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Income Tax

Gordon Prentice: How many people pay income tax at the top rate; and what the figure was in 1997.

Dawn Primarolo: Some 2.1 million people paid higher rate tax in 1997, compared with the current year in which 3.4 million pay it. The reason is that twice the number of people now earn more than £30,000, £50,000 and £100,000 than in 1997. In 1997, 2.6 million employed people earned more than £30,000, but now almost 6 million do so.

Gordon Prentice: I wonder how many people share my concern that the number of people captured in the higher rate tax band appears to be growing exponentially. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the forecast produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which suggests that by the end of the next Parliament a staggering 4.4 million people will be higher rate taxpayers? Are we happy with that?

Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend will know, the Government and Labour Members are extremely happy with the economic stability, the growth in employment and earnings and the way that tax and benefit reform has ensured that the poorest receive the most. He will also be aware that the Government have undertaken not to raise the basic or top rates of income tax within the lifetime of this Parliament.

Julie Kirkbride: At what level of income does the Paymaster General consider someone to be rich?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to concentrate much more on ensuring that the poorest in our society receive support from this Government. She will have noticed from my reply that twice as many people are now earning more than £30,000, at the same time as the poorest fifth of households have been helped considerably by the Government's tax and benefit reform.

Dennis Skinner: There is another way of looking at this issue. If more people pay tax in the highest band, it means that the booming economy has resulted in more people getting more wages and salary. If we added on another 2 per cent. tax for higher rate taxpayers, such as MPs, Cabinet Ministers, directors and the rest of them, we would be able to pay a pension of £150 to every pensioner. That is another way of looking at it.

Dawn Primarolo: I thank my hon. Friend, who is always challenging in the ways he tackles problems both in his constituency and in the Chamber. I am sure he would agree with me that the fact that pensioners, especially the poorest ones, are now considerably better off is yet another way of looking at this problem. The reforms that the Government have undertaken, including the pension credit, ensure that the poorest third of pensioners receive more money. My hon. Friend will note that twice as many people earning more than £30,000 is a tribute to the success of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his brilliant stewardship of the economy.

George Osborne: More than 1.3 million extra people have been sucked into paying the higher rate of income tax under Labour. The Paymaster General failed to say that the main reason is that while average earnings have gone up by 39 per cent., the higher rate threshold—including the personal allowance—has gone up by only 29 per cent. Does she agree that that means that a Chancellor who promised not to increase income tax has in fact increased it for 1.3 million people?

Dawn Primarolo: That is ridiculous. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post and thank him for pointing out the spectacular growth in earnings under this Government. A family with one earner on average male mean earnings of £29,300 a year has a tax rate of 20.1 per cent. That is lower than it was in 1997 under his Government and lower than in any year under his Government, right back to 1979.

George Osborne: Because of the Chancellor's stealthy trick with the tax thresholds, which even the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) pointed out to the House, the 1.3 million extra higher rate taxpayers now include deputy head teachers, police inspectors and warrant officers in the Army. Does the Paymaster General think that it is fair that those people pay the higher rate of income tax? Indeed, does she think that they are rich?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman himself pointed out the vast growth in average earnings, which, as I said to the House, are doubling the number of those earning £30,000, £50,000 and £100,000, in a progressive tax system in an economy that is growing, with 1.8 million extra jobs. Those are the figures we see. The question that the Opposition have to answer is: what would they do? What are their proposals for tackling that? The only commitment we appear to have from them is that they will slash public expenditure.

Mark Lazarowicz: When my right hon. Friend considers future taxation policy, will she also consider the merits of moving further along the road of using environmental taxation? If she does so, she may be able to reduce tax rates below even those that the Government have so far been able to achieve.

Dawn Primarolo: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the climate change levy, which was implicit in his question. Just in case the Chancellor did not hear his early Budget representation, I shall certainly make sure that those views are brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Vincent Cable: The Paymaster General knows that we disagree with both her and the Conservatives over the top rate of income tax and believe that it would be fair and practical to have a top-rate marginal tax of 50 per cent. on earnings over £100,000. As she believes that there are significant economic disincentives for a higher marginal rate of tax, will she explain the findings of the Pensions Commission, published this week, that four in 10 pensioners—a growing proportion—are now paying marginal rates in excess of 50 per cent., and that a quarter of them pay marginal rates in excess of 75 per cent.? Is there not massive inconsistency in the Government's thinking on the matter?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the pension credit reducing the 100 per cent. marginal rates that existed previously. Much as I respect the hon. Gentleman, the real problem with the Liberal Democrats is that they advocate one particular proposal to raise funding to cover all their expenditure—which it will not—thereby fundamentally undermining the very economic stability that ensures that people are earning more and are in employment, and that we have a stable economic framework.

Third World Debt

Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the progress being made towards writing off third world debt.

Gordon Brown: I can report to the House on progress at this month's World Bank meetings and the International Monetary Fund meetings that I attended and chaired on behalf of the United Kingdom.
	We decided to extend debt relief for an additional two years, making possible a debt write-off of more than £100 billion, and the decision was also made to examine in detail the British plan to match 100 per cent. bilateral debt relief by, for the first time, 100 per cent. multilateral debt relief, paid for by contributions from donor countries and, potentially, by receipts from IMF gold.
	The House will also want to know of discussions I held at those meetings that led me today to instruct the Bank of England to freeze with immediate effect the assets of JTJ, the terrorist group that publicly admitted involvement in the murders of Kenneth Bigley and five other hostages and has perpetrated a range of terrorist acts across Iraq. Following our discussions, we are working with international partners to deny JTJ access to funds across the world. We must do all in our power to ensure that there is no hiding place for terrorists and no hiding place for those who finance terrorism.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Chancellor for that answer. The whole House will welcome what he announced in the second part of his reply.
	May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the situation in Ethiopia? The UK has helped that country through debt relief and through contributions; in fact, we are increasing contributions to Ethiopia. However, the amounts that we are able to give are only a fraction of what the country has to pay in servicing its remaining debt, which is about £2 billion. Will the Chancellor, therefore, redouble his efforts to persuade the rest of the international community to speed up debt relief to Ethiopia?

Gordon Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks. I believe that our outlawing of that terrorist organisation will be welcomed by everyone in the House.
	On Ethiopia, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest as secretary of the all-party group on Ethiopia and that he is very much involved in looking at the problems of Africa as a whole. He will, therefore, be interested in the proposal that we put to the IMF and the World Bank. Half the debts of Ethiopia are multilateral debts; as a result, it has not benefited as much as it might have from bilateral debt relief and, as he says, the remaining debts are in the order of £2 billion or more. Our proposal to reduce multilateral debt relief will be of particular benefit to Ethiopia.
	I understand the urgency with which the hon. Gentleman puts his case. We know that, as a result of all the problems in Ethiopia, life expectancy is little over 40. We know that, despite all the attention that has been given to Ethiopia, there are only 2,000 doctors for 70 million people. We know, too, that one in five infants dies before the age of one. It is, therefore, urgent that we do more both on overseas aid and on wiping out the debts that arose from a previous regime. I hope that we can work together on solving that problem.

Andy Reed: I am sure that we will all be delighted to hear that multilateral debts will at last be tackled because this country has taken a lead on our bilateral debts and it is necessary for other countries to follow us. What progress has the Chancellor been able to make on the international finance facility, which will not only increase the money available, but involve the other international partners that we need to bring in? We need to look beyond the original heavily indebted poor countries. He knows that many other low-income countries would benefit from debt relief, so what progress has he made on that?

Gordon Brown: On my hon. Friend's last point, our proposal for 100 per cent. multilateral debt relief will extend beyond the 37 HIPC countries to what are called International Development Association-only countries. Such countries do not have high debts, but have problems because of some of their debts.
	In addition, we have been gaining support for the international finance facility. More than 40 countries are supporting our proposal. A report has been done for the World Bank and the IMF and a report is being done for the United Nations. The matter will be on the agenda when we chair the G7 in Britain next year. I hope that we will receive support from not only international organisations and national Governments, but campaigning organisations—I know that my hon. Friend has played a big part in helping that to grow. The proposal for the international finance facility has been helped by our decision in the spending review to set a timetable for raising overseas development aid to 0.7 per cent. I hope that the Conservative party will change its policy that would lead to massive cuts in such aid because it would be completely unacceptable.

Peter Tapsell: Does the Chancellor now regret his missed opportunity to become the managing director of the International Monetary Fund?

Gordon Brown: The managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Mr. Rato, is a very good friend of mine. He used to be the Finance Minister for Spain. He is doing an extremely good job and was supported by the United Kingdom. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in what happens to gold, so I can tell him that Mr. Rato is now supervising an investigation into the possible off-market disposal of IMF gold so that we can raise sufficient money to write off the multilateral debts that are owed to the IMF. Some 15 per cent. of multilateral debts are owed to the IMF, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support the sale of gold on this occasion.

Wayne David: Does the Chancellor share my view that development aid is not administered by the European Union as effectively as it could be?

Gordon Brown: Both sides of the House should have a common opinion of the problem that we face. Although 90 per cent. of our overseas aid goes to the poorest countries in the world and we use untied aid so that it can go to help the poor directly, less than 50 per cent. of the European Union's overseas aid budget goes to the poorest countries in the world, with the result that only €3 per head goes to Africa and €0.3 per head goes to Asia—the two poorest continents in the world. We propose to release €1 billion from the EU external aid budget so that the money can go to the poorest countries in the world. I am asking the overseas aid Commissioner, who has not given total support to my proposal for the international finance facility, to tell his successor that he should seriously consider increasing the amount that the EU gives for debt relief, getting money to the poorest countries and supporting our proposal for an international finance facility, which is now receiving support throughout Europe.

Roy Beggs: I congratulate the Chancellor on the action that he has taken to date, and the international leadership that he has given, to write off third world debt. What support from overseas aid has been given to the Cayman Islands and other islands in the Commonwealth that have been devastated this summer by hurricanes?

Gordon Brown: We have given money to the Caribbean countries and we are giving additional support as a result of what has happened over the past few weeks. Such countries with debt burdens that are unmanageable and unpayable are part of the process through which we are writing off debt. Although we talk about Africa and Asia as the poorest continents, there are Caribbean countries that need their debts writing off. I hope that we can get all-party support for moving forward on that, but difficult decisions must be taken. We must invest more of our overseas aid budget into debt relief and win support from other countries for the international finance facility. I tell the shadow Chancellor that the process would be helped if all political parties supported an increase in the international development budget instead of calling for massive cuts to it.

Small Firms Loan Guarantee

Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the small firms loan guarantee.

Gordon Brown: Following the Graham review, which reported in the past few days, I can report to the House a major change in the scale, quality and speed of small business support throughout the United Kingdom. For firms less than three years old with turnovers of £5.6 million or less, loans now under the small business guarantee scheme will increase from a maximum of £100,000 to £250,000 and will be administered by an independent company at arm's length from the Government.
	Based on the successful US model, we are also piloting enterprise capital funds that could invest up to £2 million in small businesses. With low interest rates and small business tax cut from 23p to 19p, all types of small business can get the extra finance that they need.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Has he implemented the recommendations on the small firms loan guarantee?

Gordon Brown: The Graham report is into the small firms loan guarantee scheme and is being implemented by the Government. The main change is that instead of being able to borrow only £100,000 for new investment, firms of less than three years' standing can now borrow £250,000. The scheme has helped thousands of companies over the years. Twice as many companies are getting help now. It is as a result of that scheme and others that 400,000 more small businesses are in the economy than there were in 1997, which shows the success of an economic policy based on stability.

Paul Goodman: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has
	"a cross-government role in the co-ordination of government policy."
	When did the right hon. Gentleman last meet the Chancellor of the Duchy to discuss small business and co-ordination? If they disagree about the co-ordination, who has the final say? Is it the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Chancellor of the Duchy?

Gordon Brown: I think I met him at the Cabinet meeting only a few minutes ago.

Chris Bryant: What the Chancellor has announced is very good news. In some of the poorest constituencies in the land, such as my own, it is difficult for new start-up businesses to access finance. Will the company have a specific remit to work proactively in some of the poorest constituencies, which have the lowest number of new businesses starting up, to help those companies to set up?

Gordon Brown: We have created enterprise areas in those areas where historically there has been high unemployment. Some 2,000 enterprise areas have greater advantages in terms of the help that can be given to start-ups and the fastest planning permission that can be granted for starting up a business. There is more help for new investment projects in my hon. Friend's constituency and others around the country.
	The range of support available to small business starting up is greater than at any time in our history. It is for that reason that we now have 4 million small businesses compared with just over 3.6 million in 1997; that the number of self-employed has risen by more than 100,000 since 1997; and that the number of people employed in small business has risen by two thirds of a million since 1997. We are not complacent and intend to do more, but in every constituency of this country there are more small businesses—in some cases, several hundred more—than there were in 1997.

Henry Bellingham: The Chancellor realises that the scheme is excellent, and we support it. It was set up by a former Conservative small business Minister. Is he aware that most of the small firms organisations have been saying for some time that it should be administered by the clearing banks without day to day involvement by civil servants? Will he heed that advice?

Gordon Brown: I announced only a few minutes ago that that is exactly what we are doing. The scheme will be at arm's length from the Government, administered by a company that can make independent decisions, free of interference from the Department of Trade and Industry. Both the Liberal party and the Conservative party had better look at their proposals for the future of small businesses because I understand that both not only want to cut the support that is available, but want to abolish the Department in its entirety.

Science Strategy

Ross Cranston: What representations he has received on his Department's measures to support science.

Gordon Brown: Following 200 representations in support of our 10-year science strategy and the announcement of an additional £1 billion of funding for science by 2008, I can report that we will have a national conference on science and innovation, in advance of the Budget, with all members of the scientific community and industry. We will discuss with them further ways of building on the successful 10-year strategy that was launched in the summer to improve the quality and quantity of science investment in the United Kingdom.

Ross Cranston: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that we have an excellent science base. The problem is translating that into practical reality, demonstrated by the historical low research and development expenditure. Professor van Reenen recently demonstrated that that was especially low in the 1980s because of a lack of Government support. Van Reenen and his colleagues have also said that tax subsidies have an effect, so the Government's measures on tax credits are to be welcomed. But could the Chancellor ensure that at the conference the separate issue that the Economic and Social Research Council identified in its report on productivity, namely intellectual property rights, will be on the agenda?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is right—the protection of intellectual property is crucial, particularly for a country such as ours, which holds a sizeable number of the new patents that are issued throughout the world. It is also important to recognise that the development of the science base in this country is possible only if there is substantial Government funding for science. The increase of £1 billion from the Government in the next few years, together with the welcome investment by the Wellcome Foundation, which is providing an additional £1 billion, will build up the science base in this country over the next few years in a way that has not happened before. A few minutes ago, I said that we now have the best support in living memory for small businesses to develop, and we also have the best support available, and we want to do more, to aid science and technology in this country, and to help spin-off companies from the universities. Not only will we do what we can to protect intellectual property but we will maintain the growth of incentives available to science-based industries.

Chris Grayling: I have to say that what the Chancellor has just said is complete rubbish. Is he not aware that his changes to the rules on venture capital have killed start-up businesses emerging from our universities stone dead? Will he go away, look at the problem and come back with something positive to tell the House? He should stop telling us things that, frankly, are not what universities are experiencing on the ground.

Gordon Brown: I would take the hon. Gentleman's representation seriously if he had been right about the windfall tax, which he opposed, extra spending on the NHS, which he opposed, and the minimum wage, which he opposed. He is factually wrong about what is happening to the venture capital industry in this country. The extra incentives that we have given that industry have been welcomed by all parts of it, which shows how remote the Conservative party is from business and industry in this country.

John McFall: The Chancellor may be aware that the Treasury Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into regional productivity. On a recent visit to Germany, we were impressed by the nationwide Fraunhofer research institutes, which bridge the gap between higher education research and manufacturing industry. What measures is he taking to ensure that the welcome increase in science spending will secure the linkage between universities, higher education, manufacturing and other industries so that we can increase economic prosperity and productivity throughout the United Kingdom?

Gordon Brown: My right hon. Friend, who is undertaking that investigation as Chairman of the Treasury Committee, is quite right—we want to build modern manufacturing strength in this country, which depends on investment in science and technology and on universities being in a position to produce spin-off companies. However, it also depends on businesses investing in innovation in ways that they did not in previous years. We have set a target to raise innovation expenditure from 1.9 per cent. to 2.5 per cent., and have put in additional money ourselves. The research and development tax credit has been taken up by thousands of small firms—

Mark Prisk: The Chancellor is wrong—it has been taken up by only 5 per cent. of all firms.

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, as 95 per cent. of the firms eligible for the small business R and D credit have taken it up. I shall write to him today to put him right about the facts. Perhaps the Treasury Committee should undertake an inquiry into the Conservative party's lack of knowledge about what is happening to British industry. We will have to offer a course of education so that its candidates are prepared at the next election.

Mark Prisk: As the Chancellor wants to talk about innovation, let us do so. Innovation and science, as he knows, rely on good research and development. He mentioned his tax credit scheme, yet it specifically and quite intentionally excludes the smallest partnerships and firms. Given that those are the very entrepreneurs who are at the cutting edge of both science and technology, why is the Chancellor deliberately excluding them from the scheme? Perhaps he should learn that lesson.

Gordon Brown: We are spending £600 million on the small business R and D credit scheme. The hon. Gentleman proposes to extend the scheme to other firms, so presumably he wants to spend more on that credit. Why, therefore, does the shadow Chancellor want to cut the budget for science and research and development? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a seminar with his right hon. Friend to try to square the circle.

Anne Campbell: Scientists in my constituency appreciate the Chancellor's championing of science and the vast increase in that budget under this Government. How can we ensure that 2.5 per cent. of publicly funded research and development actually gets to small businesses?

Gordon Brown: Small businesses collect the R and D tax credit themselves. The tax credit is efficient; it works in America; and now it is working in Britain. The Conservatives should understand that thousands of companies' innovation plans depend on the R and D tax credit, which would be abolished under a Conservative Government. Not only the CBI, but all major businesses in this country welcomed our 10-year science document. The Opposition may want to disparage the Royal Society, Microsoft, the Wellcome Trust, the CBI and Qinetiq, which wanted the science strategy. The Conservative party would cut science expenditure, which, like the health service, education, transport and law and order, is another area of public expenditure that is at risk from a Conservative Administration.

Tobacco Duty

Anthony Steen: If he will commission research to assess the impact on revenues from duty on tobacco of Government initiatives to seek to reduce levels of smoking.

John Healey: Smoking kills 120,000 people in this country every year and adds more than £1.5 billion to NHS costs. The Government's primary concern is to reduce those health and other social costs by cutting smoking. Of course, we also review the consequences for the tax system caused by changes in consumption each year as part of the Budget process.

Anthony Steen: I am a long-term campaigner to restrict smoking in public places. Bearing in mind that hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken their positions, will the Economic Secretary tell the House whether he is in favour of people smoking themselves to death in restaurants, not to mention passive smoking, so long as it brings in a healthy sum to the Treasury?

John Healey: I explained to the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury keeps an eye on tax receipts from tobacco. However, the Treasury strongly supports the NHS's stop smoking services, the expansion of those services, campaigns to raise awareness of the risks of smoking for young people and the comprehensive ban on cigarette advertising. The hon. Gentleman's argument is—how can I put this gently and politely?—rubbish.

Paddy Tipping: Are not health and education programmes the most appropriate way in which to help people—particularly people from low-income families—quit smoking, rather than simply pricing them out of the market?

John Healey: Successive Governments, including this one, have used the high price of cigarettes to encourage people to reduce smoking. That policy has been successful after the past two decades, but it is not the only measure that we take. The education campaigns that my hon. Friend mentioned are, in part, responsible for the recent cut in young people's regular smoking. The Government are considering a wide range of measures as part of our public health consultation, and my hon. Friends in the Department of Health will take my hon. Friend's comments as a late representation to that process.

Mark Field: Will the Economic Secretary also examine high levels of tobacco duty and smuggling? He knows that it is now estimated that some 30 per cent. of UK cigarettes are counterfeit and are therefore practically tax exempt, which obviously impacts on not only the overall tax take, but on the health programmes discussed by other hon. Members.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned, as we are, by tobacco smuggling's impact—about £3 billion a year—on the public purse. The differences in duty between the UK and other EU member states are not the point. The vast majority of smuggled cigarettes arrive in bulk with no duty having been paid within the European Union or anywhere else. Such organised criminal activity, which we are taking steps to disrupt, is the major problem that is causing a loss to the taxpayer.

Third World Poverty

John MacDougall: When he last met G7 leaders to discuss third world poverty.

Tom Clarke: What his Department's policy is on ensuring that the resources allocated to tackling poverty in developing countries are used to best effect.

Gordon Brown: At the IMF and World Bank meetings that I attended a few days ago, I proposed that we make better use of existing aid by reorganising priorities, untying aid and pooling funds internationally. That includes calling on the European Union to focus more of its aid on the poorest countries. We also propose that other countries set a timetable for spending 0.7 per cent. of their national income on aid, as well as a doubling of aid through the adoption of the international finance facility.

John MacDougall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on his response but on the effort that he has put into tackling world debt, which is well recognised across the House. Can he tell me how many countries are able to meet their public service requirements given the background of third world debt, and what hopes he has for the future as regards tackling that problem?

Gordon Brown: There are 27 countries receiving debt relief which has made it possible for them to spend more on their social policies, including health and education. Madagascar's spending has risen by 60 per cent., Uganda's has risen by nearly 50 per cent., and some countries have been able to double their expenditure on health and education. In Tanzania it has been possible to offer all children school education, and in Uganda the pupil:teacher ratio has been cut from 100:1 to 50:1. Those are the results of existing debt relief. Our new proposal for multilateral debt relief will release further funds for health, education and—this is absolutely crucial for the future—economic development.

Tom Clarke: I acknowledge, as does the whole House, how much the Chancellor has done to increase real overseas aid. In doing so, however, may I encourage him to continue to demand the utmost transparency so that the funding that is made available grows to challenge illiteracy, poverty and all the ills of developing countries; and to continue to challenge corruption so that the people whom he intends to help—the many, not the few—are recognised by his policies?

Gordon Brown: Members on both sides of the House will agree with what my right hon. Friend says about tackling corruption and introducing transparency into public accounts and the way in which Governments operate. I applaud him for the work that he has done over many years in promoting the cause of developing countries.
	When the economic group of the Commission for Africa met, uppermost in our minds was whether it was possible to secure a bargain with the African countries whereby in return for our providing additional aid, perhaps through the international finance facility, the central banks and finance ministries of those countries are prepared to be far more transparent by opening their books to show where the money is really being spent. That could be agreed at next year's meeting of the G7. I met central bank governors and finance Ministers from many countries in Africa to discuss a proposal that would require far greater transparency and the opening of the books before additional money was made available. That is why the conditionality to which my right hon. Friend refers is essential if we are to ensure the best use of overseas aid.

Jenny Tonge: I add my congratulations to the Chancellor on what he is doing for the very poorest people in the world and on what he is still trying to achieve. However, there have recently been disturbing reports that Department for International Development projects in Africa are being stopped or suspended and the money for them diverted to the reconstruction of Iraq. Is he not concerned that money promised to the very poorest people of the world should be used to repair the damage that our country and the USA have inflicted on Iraq? Should not that money more properly come from the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence, or even No. 10 Downing street?

Gordon Brown: I can tell the hon. Lady, who has also been a campaigner on debt relief and overseas aid, that the budget for the poorest countries in Africa is not falling, but increasing, and that no money has been taken from the budget that is available to the poorest countries for the necessary reconstruction of Iraq. The budgets for those countries are rising this year, next year, the year after and the year after that, and the money is going specifically to the poorest countries and poorest people in Africa and Asia. As the hon. Lady will see from the figures that DFID publishes, overseas development aid is rising each year so that we meet 0.47 per cent. by 2008 and 0.7 per cent., in line with the timetable, by 2013. If our international finance facility proposal is accepted by the rest of the world, or at least by many countries, we could get to 0.7 per cent. by 2009. That would be a major achievement indeed.
	One of the effects of what we have managed to do in increasing our development aid budget and setting a timetable is that five additional countries over the last year have set a timetable for getting to 0.7 per cent. So what has started in some countries is being adopted by others, but I caution the hon. Lady against saying that money is being taken for Iraq, because more money is going to African countries.

Desmond Swayne: Does the Chancellor agree that the simple cancellation of debt is perhaps one of the least effective ways to ensure that money is spent for the relief of poverty under what are, after all, some of the less accountable regimes in the world?

Gordon Brown: The cancellation of debt is the beginning—the starting point—for countries to be able to sort out their problems. If they continue to carry that burden of debt, it is not possible for them to take action on the problems that we have been talking about in the last few minutes. We have stood up for a very intense form of conditionality in relation to the poverty reduction strategies that have to be produced for the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. That requires country ownership of the problem, community involvement and civil society being involved in the discussion.
	We have set down new guidelines, new rules and codes and standards that all countries have to follow in relation to the transparency of their public accounts, but it would be a terrible mistake for the hon. Gentleman to say that there should be no debt relief because he is dissatisfied with some of the ways that were adopted in the past. We are making huge improvements in transparency—more has to be done—but the problems in many of those countries will not be solved unless there is more generous debt relief.

Taxation and Saving

Andrew MacKay: What assessment he has made of the effect of the level of taxation on (a) personal and (b) retirement saving.

Stephen Timms: Relief on the taxation of savings has a very positive effect. Tax support for individual savings accounts and other forms of personal saving amounts to more than £2 billion a year. Annual tax relief to individuals and employers for retirement saving amounts to more than £11 billion.

Andrew MacKay: As the Chancellor has raided £5 billion each year from our pension funds, will the Financial Secretary accept some responsibility on the Chancellor's behalf for the awful mess that our pensions are now in?

Stephen Timms: The change that the right hon. Gentleman refers to removed a distortion in the system that favoured dividends at the expense of investment—a point made in 1993 by the Chancellor, Lord Lamont, in his Budget speech. Commenting on surplus advance corporation tax, he said:
	"This can have damaging economic effects . . . It cannot be right to distort the commercial decisions of British companies in this way".—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 186.]
	I note that the Conservative party is not proposing to reverse that change. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, at the same time, introduced reductions in the rate of corporation tax, offsetting that change. That package has led to the unprecedented period of economic stability and growth that we have enjoyed since.

Anne Begg: Is it not clear from the Turner report, which was published this week, that if our country is to continue to pay the basic state pension we obviously have to keep the level of taxation that we have at the moment or increase it, or indeed increase the age at which people retire? The Opposition propose to link the basic state pension back to earnings, and they have been disingenuous in pretending that they can also lower taxation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister does not answer for the Opposition. The Opposition worry about Opposition policies.

Stephen Timms: Certainly the Opposition's policy is unaffordable. The Turner commission has done us a great service by setting out the challenges that we face, not so much in the next 10 years, but over a 20 or 25-year period. I hope that we can have a mature and sensible debate across the House about what is the right way forward.

Howard Flight: Does the Minister not realise the indirect damage that the pension tax has done, particularly to pensions saving, in terms of its leading to a 35 per cent. underperformance of the British stock market? There has been a major loss of value, and basically £5 billion is worth £100 billion of value.

Stephen Timms: The Turner commission makes the point that the impact of that change is comparable with that of the changes in the Finance Act 1986—a subject on which we hear rather less from those on the Conservative Benches. Turner also says—this is the key point—that the effects of both changes are small compared with the impact of the stock market fall and the rapid increase in longevity. Those are the big challenges that are affecting our pension system, and I hope we can have a mature and sensible debate about how best to address them.

Bill O'Brien: In considering the prospects for pensioners, will my hon. Friend ensure that the policies introduced by the Chancellor on pension credits, the 10p starting rate and the other benefits that pensioners receive continue—that is what pensioners are requesting, particularly poorer pensioners—so that we can ensure that they have a reasonable quality of life in retirement?

Stephen Timms: I welcome all the work that my hon. Friend has done in campaigning for improved income for pensioners. In 1997, a large number of pensioners were on a total income of £69 a week. Through the changes that we have introduced and the pension credit in particular, there have been dramatic improvements. I assure him that we will ensure that the pace of progress continues.

Oliver Letwin: It would be churlish not to begin by welcoming the Financial Secretary back to the post he once occupied with some distinction, and by offering him my commiserations on having to deal with the Chancellor's mess on pensions.
	This week, one newspaper carried the banner headline, "The Great Pensions Betrayal". Does the Financial Secretary understand that headline? Does he see why people feel betrayed by the Chancellor's taxes on savings, the £5 billion tax raid on pension funds, and the means tests for pensioners?

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome, but I do not accept for a moment the characterisation that he has presented. As I said earlier, and as the Turner commission spells out clearly, the fall in the world stock market has raised big questions for the future of our pension system, as does the rapid increase in longevity, which of course all of us welcome. The impact of the items that the right hon. Gentleman listed is very small compared with those big changes. I genuinely hope that we can have serious reflection across the House on the basis of the Turner commission's useful work on the right way forward to deal with the big challenges that our pension system faces.

Oliver Letwin: When will the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor see that it demeans the whole of British politics when Ministers stand there and claim sole responsibility for all the good things in the economy and then claim that they have no responsibility whatever for the pensions crisis? Is he not concerned that, partly because of the Chancellor's taxes and his means test, we now have a savings ratio which is half the European average? Does not the Financial Secretary see that there is now an urgent necessity to restore the incentive to save?

Stephen Timms: The right hon. Gentleman needs to acknowledge that pensioner incomes have risen dramatically since 1997—faster than the rate of earnings growth. It is true that policy has focused, in our view, rightly, on the incomes of the least well off pensioners, but average pensioner incomes as a whole have risen faster than earnings. The current savings ratio is about the same as it was in the 1960s, the last time we had a period of stability and stable growth. Of course, in the early 1990s, because of the instability in the economy, the picture was different, but the savings ratio is currently higher than in the US. The right hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the long period of stability and growth that we have enjoyed, which means that pensioners and all of us are much better off.

Health Expenditure

Siobhain McDonagh: What the change in public expenditure on health has been in real terms since 1997.

Paul Boateng: As a result of the Government's policy in successive spending reviews, public expenditure on health has risen by about 60 per cent. in real terms since 1997. By 2008, it will have risen by 90 per cent., to nearly £110 billion across the United Kingdom. That is the biggest ever sustained increase in national health service funding.

Siobhain McDonagh: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that brilliant answer, particularly for the people in my constituency? Under the last Conservative Government, the only remaining hospital in my constituency was closed, despite opposition from thousands of constituents. By contrast, my local health authority is today looking at ways to expand the health service, and one of its most amazing recommendations is that the Wilson hospital should reopen. If that recommendation is supported, as I anticipate it will be, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give my constituents that the funds will be available to reverse the Tory decision and reopen the Wilson hospital?

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend is kind, but much more important she is also an effective campaigner for the health service in Mitcham and Morden. She will know that as a result of this Government's actions her primary care trust is seeing its budget rise by some 20 per cent. in real terms in just three years. The good news is that that resource is accompanied by reform that creates a more responsive service with greater choice and information for patients. I have no doubt that her constituents will continue to benefit from the reforms and resources that we are applying to the NHS. I have no doubt either that, in re-electing her at the next general election, whenever it comes, her constituents will comprehensively reject the mishmash of cuts and privatisation that are on offer from the Opposition.

Anne McIntosh: If the Chief Secretary is right and so much more money, in his view, is being spent on hospitals, why is their state of cleanliness so poor, and why are thousands more people dying from MRSA?

Paul Boateng: No one, least of all someone who has had the pleasure of working in the Department of Health, for one moment underestimates the challenges that are faced in terms of infection in hospitals or the extent to which dedicated NHS staff and managers are working to address those challenges. It is important to keep them in perspective, however, and to remember, too, that as a result of the investment in the NHS we are addressing those challenges, not simply with new build but also with training. We are making sure, too, that the procedures in place at every NHS facility correspond with the highest standards and the best international practice.

Andy Burnham: Does the Chief Secretary agree that this unprecedented rising tide of investment presents an historic opportunity to correct local deficits in health funding and to tackle some of the health inequalities that blight our country? While all primary care trusts got at least double figure percentage increases last time, nevertheless some in the most deprived parts are more than £10 million away from target funding, while others in more prosperous areas are probably £10 million over target. With the next round of PCT allocations imminent, will the Chief Secretary meet colleagues from the Department of Health to see what can be done to remove entirely all distance from health funding targets?

Paul Boateng: I know that my hon. Friend spends a great deal of time in his constituency on health service issues, and I will certainly make sure that his concerns on deficits and their impact in terms of our capacity to meet the targets that we have set ourselves for reducing health inequalities are made known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—who, I am sure, will be only too happy to make sure that he and his departmental team are fully aware of all those concerns.

Mortgage Rates

Peter Pike: What assessment his Department has made of the effect on the housing market of recent mortgage rate increases.

Paul Boateng: Interest rates remain low by historical standards, ensuring that mortgage interest payments also remain historically low. Households' total interest payments are now 7.6 per cent. of disposable income, compared with a peak of over 15 per cent. in the early 1990s.

Peter Pike: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. It is to the Government's great credit that we have seen low interest rates and low mortgage payments, which are so important. He knows that we have had to do something to stop the increase in house prices in London, which were escalating at too high a rate. Does he recognise that in my constituency, which I know he knows well, we have a problem with low demand, and that we do not want that to be affected by increases in interest rates?

Paul Boateng: On previous occasions, my hon. Friend raised his particular concerns, which I know are shared by his constituents, about housing in Burnley. Interestingly, mortgage interest rates are only one factor impacting on the housing market in his constituency. As research has shown, in the north-west there remains a need to tackle underlying problems of poor quality and insufficient choice in housing. That is why the Government are ensuring that we are investing nearly £7 million this year specifically in housing in Burnley, and that is on top of the investment being leveraged in by the East Lancashire housing market renewal pathfinder, which amounts to some £15 million over two years. I will be visiting—next week, I believe—the Burnley pathfinder, where I look forward to seeing for myself the good work that I know is being done.

Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend looking at any particular measures to help first-time buyers, particularly in my constituency where there are real difficulties now because of house prices?

Paul Boateng: There continue to be real concerns about affordability in relation to the housing market. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister is working on a long-term national goal for affordability in the housing market. Reforms to the planning system are being introduced to facilitate and help with that and we intend to consult on those changes in the coming year. It has to be about long-term solutions, but in the short to medium term we are also of course taking steps to improve access to the housing market for key workers.
	It is important to remember that since 1997 there have been over 1 million new households as a result of the stability of the housing market, which reflects the underlying stability of the economy. People have more money that they are able to spend on housing, and that money is being spent, and spent in a way that improves not just people's access to housing but the quality of housing available to those people who will never be able to buy, because they are important too.

Financial Advice and Services

Nigel Beard: If he will reform the rules governing the delivery of financial advice and services through the workplace.

Stephen Timms: Yes we will, as part of the two-year review of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. We have had a large and supportive response to the consultation on our proposals, which concluded in May. I will announce the key outcomes of the review shortly. The changes will make it easier for employers to promote their pension scheme in the workplace, subject to safeguards.

Nigel Beard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in the evidence to the Treasury Committee on restoring confidence in long-term savings, there was widespread agreement on the advantages of being able to promote pension and savings schemes in the workplace, but at present employers are prevented from doing that? An employer cannot, for instance, promote a stakeholder pension scheme to which they contribute, although a very similar occupational scheme could be promoted. Does my hon. Friend agree that unless these legal inhibitions and anomalies are removed, the pension and savings issues raised by the Turner commission report this week cannot be properly addressed?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I had noticed that that point had been made in the evidence and I pay tribute to him for his work on the Select Committee and on the all-party group on financial markets and services. Research by the Association of British Insurers has shown that about 40 per cent. of employers feel inhibited from promoting their schemes by the current financial promotion regime. We are proposing an exemption from the regulations for employers so that they can provide advice to employees on their pensions without having to be regulated by the Financial Services Authority, along the lines that my hon. Friend proposes. I also take his point about urgency. I want to announce the outcome of the two-year review before Christmas and I hope that the regulations will be in place by next spring.

David Laws: Is it not difficult for advisers to give good financial advice when Government policy keeps changing so rapidly, particularly in areas such as pensions? For example, can the Minister give people any guarantee that the pension credit will still be around in 10 years' time?

Stephen Timms: I think the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that there have been enormous gains from the economic stability that we have enjoyed since 1997, including confidence for people making their preparations for the future. The pension credit has been an enormous success and I can certainly say to him that, subject to this Government's being re-elected, we will maintain the policy that has done so much to increase the incomes of the less well-off pensioners.

Pensions and Saving

Damian Green: If he will make a statement on pensions and saving.

Stephen Timms: Since 1997, the Government have provided £80 billion in support for pensions and saving. The pension credit supports more than 3 million of the least well-off pensioners, ending the scandal of pensioners forced to live on as little as £69 a week. With stakeholder pensions, individual savings accounts and, from next year, the child trust funds, we are delivering new incentives, simpler products and better information for pensioners and all savers.

Damian Green: A few minutes ago, the Minister called for a mature, cross-party debate on pensions. I agree with him, and in that spirit I commend to him the words of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who said in the House yesterday that the means-tested pension credit could not continue indefinitely. It is welcome that the Secretary of State is moving into the consensus that already contains the Conservative party, other Opposition parties and many outside bodies with an interest in pensions. So may I invite the Minister today to join that widening consensus—that progressive consensus, as the Chancellor would, no doubt, call it—and agree with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions that the means-tested credit will go?

Stephen Timms: I was present at the debate yesterday. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who made an excellent speech on the subject, by contrast with the speech made by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who led the debate for the Conservative party—was talking about the future trajectory of indexation, which is a rather different matter from the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, I can tell him that our determination to increase the income of the least well-off pensioners will continue. We have seen very dramatic improvements as a result of the pension credit, and I want that progress to be maintained.

Business of the House

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 18 October—Opposition Day [19th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Government's Failure on Crime", followed by a debate entitled "Government's Failure to Tackle Climate Change". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
	Tuesday 19 October—Remaining stages of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 20 October—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill, followed by a debate on the national service framework for children, young people and maternity on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 21 October—A debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 22 October—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 25 October—Opposition Day [20th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 26 October—A debate on programming and other House business.
	Wednesday 27 October—Remaining stages of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords].
	Thursday 28 October—Second Reading of the School Transport Bill.
	Friday 29 October—The House will not be sitting.
	I should like to inform the House that business in Westminster Hall will be:
	Thursday 28 October—A cross-cutting question session on antisocial behaviour, followed by a debate on the United Kingdom in the United Nations.
	Thursday 4 November—A debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on foreign policy aspects of the war against terrorism.
	Thursday 11 November—A debate on the western Balkans: the challenges of post-conflict development.
	As the House will have noted, I have announced the Second Reading of the School Transport Bill for Thursday 28 October. The House will also wish to know that we intend to introduce the Gambling Bill and, subject to the progress of business in the Lords, the Disability Discrimination Bill. All three Bills will be carried over into the next Session.
	With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce the recess dates for the Commons calendar for the Session 2004–05. In doing so, I should reinforce my previous warning to the House that it is in the interests of everyone to treat the following dates as very provisional. Clearly, they are subject to the progress of business and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House and staff will bear that in mind before making any plans to travel abroad.
	The dates are as follows. For Christmas, the House will rise at the close of business on Tuesday 21 December and return on Monday 10 January. The constituency week will start at the close of business on Thursday 10 February, with the House returning on Monday 21 February. The House will rise for the Easter recess on Thursday 24 March and return on Monday 4 April. For the Whitsun break, the House will rise at the close of business on Thursday 26 May and return on Monday 6 June. The House will rise for the summer recess on Thursday 28 July and return on Monday 10 October.
	The printed calendar will be available in the Vote Office for next week's business statement. However, details of the calendar are now available to our constituents, and to Members, on the website of the Leader of the House—www.CommonsLeader.gov.uk.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for publishing the annual parliamentary calendar today. It is very helpful for Members planning ahead to have such early notice. Now that the Prime Minister has told us that he would like to serve another five years—although I am not sure that the electors will necessarily give him the chance; I certainly hope not—is the Leader of the House thinking of bringing out another of those pseudo-Stalinist five-year plans, this time for parliamentary business? I look forward to hearing about that idea.
	I understand why we shall not be sitting next September. Will the right hon. Gentleman treat next year's non-sitting September as a pilot for the future and can he assure the House that he will take the necessary steps to ensure that there is no resulting loss of the time available to scrutinise what the Government are doing?
	Yesterday the Prime Minister apologised a little more for the information that he published before the war. Can we expect a statement next week pushing the apology another centimetre or two, perhaps admitting that—no doubt in good faith—he exaggerated the intelligence that he had been given? Surely, it will only be when he makes a full apology for misrepresenting the evidence that the public may begin to trust him again.
	The Leader of the House has announced that the Gambling Bill will start its passage through the House. That is extremely welcome, given the worrying effects of unregulated internet gambling on children and the vulnerable. Why, however, was it necessary for that to be reported in the Financial Times today, rather than the Leader of the House simply coming here and telling us what he was doing? The report says:
	"Peter Hain, leader of the Commons, is expected to tell MPs that the gambling bill will be introduced into the Commons during the next four weeks. It will then be carried over into the new parliamentary session".
	Surely we were entitled to hear that news first, particularly on an issue that I have raised with the right hon. Gentleman in the past.
	Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on the middle east peace process? In all parts of the House, and in the country, there is deep concern about the continuing suffering and death on all sides. Perhaps the best time to hold such a debate would be after the presidential election, but the House will wish to discuss the situation soon.
	Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a full list of Bills and draft Bills that the Government intend to bring forward during the next Session will be published at the time of the Queen's Speech?
	Finally, will the Leader of the House confirm that details of Members' expenses will be published next week? It would be helpful if he could tell us the date. Those expenses are governed by strict rules of the House and the proper mechanism for raising any questions is by means of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Philip Mawer.

Peter Hain: I am grateful for some of the points that the shadow Leader of the House raised, especially about the calendar, because one of the reasons why I wanted to bring the information to the House as soon as possible was to allow Members—and, equally importantly, staff—to plan ahead.
	May I deal with the hon. Gentleman's last point next? I am grateful to him for raising it. Details of Members' expenses will be published at 3.30 pm next Thursday, as agreed by the Members Estimate Committee. They will be published on the Parliament website, www.parliament.uk. As every Member is aware, the allowances are crucial in enabling MPs to undertake their duties, deal with the wide range of issues brought to them by constituents and represent their constituents' interests in Parliament.
	To avoid any possible misinterpretation, I want to emphasise very strongly the point made by the shadow Leader of the House that all such expenses are accounted for in accordance with the strict rules of the House. Both the director of finance and administration and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards have a role in ensuring that those rules are followed and would, I am sure, be happy to answer any inquiries and questions. Each hon. Member, of whatever party, is affected equally, and I trust that no Member, not even a prospective parliamentary candidate, will deal with the disclosure in an irresponsible manner.
	The Prime Minister's duration in office is a matter for the electorate in the first instance. After that, he has made clear his intention, with all our support, to serve a full third term. That cannot be clearer.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Iraq war and recycled the tired old attack—the Leader of the Opposition repeated it yesterday—that virtually questions the Prime Minister's integrity. The Prime Minister, with the support of the Cabinet, saw the intelligence that all the other intelligence agencies in the world saw and accepted as accurate. That includes the Russians, the French and the Germans, who disagreed with the decision to go to war. They accepted that the intelligence was accurate and we acted on it in enforcing the will of the United Nations. It does the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition no credit to continue the recycled attack on the integrity of the Prime Minister, who showed a great deal of courage in making a tough decision, as was shown by the uncovering of the awful evidence of mass graves under Saddam. That evidence justified the decision to go into Iraq in support of United Nations resolutions.
	I welcome the fact that the shadow Leader of the House is pleased about the introduction of the gambling measure. It is important that we regulate properly gambling on the internet and by other means. I have made an announcement about the Bill at the first opportunity. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Prime Minister announced in his speech at the Labour party conference that, as soon as the American presidential elections are out of the way, he will seek immediate re-engagement to secure an outcome that will achieve an independent Palestinian state and an Israeli state that is secure from terrorists and other attacks, living side by side. It is the only future for that part of the world. The sooner we engage actively—the Prime Minister has constantly worked for that with the United States Administration—in bringing that outcome to fruit, the better.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we would publish the full list of Bills and draft Bills alongside the Queen's Speech. We intend to do that. It is in the interests of the House and the Liaison Committee was grateful for the advance notice of draft Bills that I was able to provide earlier this year.

Keith Vaz: As the Leader of the House knows, next year, Britain will hold the presidency of the G8 and the European Union. The Prime Minister has made clear the themes of the G8 presidency—there is even a logo for it—but there has been no clarification of the precise themes for the EU presidency. Can we have an early debate about what the themes should be so that the Government can gauge hon. Members' mood on such an important issue? The Government could then use the presidency to campaign on Europe. When are we likely to have the logo for the presidency?

Peter Hain: I am not in a position to help my hon. Friend but I welcome his interest in a crucial time when British leadership under the Labour Government will, through the G8 and EU presidencies, again be displayed. He may rest assured that the Prime Minister and our Labour Government will tackle with great vigour and energy all the key challenges that face Europe as well the G8 countries.

Paul Tyler: In response to the comments of the Leader of the House, I reassure him that my colleagues and I do not primarily question the Prime Minister's integrity. However, we question his judgment. Would not it be helpful if we could see the full facts, including the Attorney-General's advice, before taking a final decision on the matter?
	We, too, welcome what the Leader of the House said about Members' expenses, but we hope that he is not being over-optimistic in assuming that the media will not indulge in misrepresentation and misunderstanding.
	The Leader of the House made an announcement about the non-September sittings next year, and I would like to ask him a number of questions about that. Can he confirm that the removal of those two weeks will not set a precedent, as it is happening due to the one-off need for building works in the House? What will he do if there is pressure on time next year? Will he extend our sittings from July into August—that was the quid pro quo—or will he take time out of the constituency weeks at half-term? Can he assure us that, during the 11 weeks when the House is not sitting, there will be arrangements for Members on both sides of the House to question Ministers and hold them to account?
	I have previously congratulated the House of Commons Commission on the excellent annual report that it published recently. Indeed, I have referred to the introduction, Mr. Speaker, in which you say:
	"There can be few groups of customers more demanding than 659 Members of Parliament".
	I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that this is an extremely important report containing important issues and a great deal of useful information for Members. It is difficult, however, for Members to debate these issues. I and other Members have sought to discover whether we debate the annual report in Westminster Hall. We are spending £140 million in cash outturn terms, and that is clearly a big sum. This place is dependent on holding people who spend taxpayers' money to account—that is our role in life. Surely there must be some way for us to have a debate on this matter. It involves the whole issue of accountability. I think that the Leader of the House might be sympathetic to the idea that, in addition to the dates that he has already given us for Government business in Westminster Hall, there might be an opportunity for us to discuss the matter on a Thursday afternoon. The House authorities advise me that that is the only way in which we can debate this extremely important function of the House.

Peter Hain: To deal with the hon. Gentleman's last point first, I am grateful—as I am sure all members of the Commission will be—for his acknowledgement that the annual report is an excellent one. It is indeed; it contains very useful information and it is very important. Right hon. and hon. Members often ask questions whose answers are to be found in it. I take his point that it would be an advantage if there were an opportunity—apart from putting questions to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), his colleague who answers for the Commission—to debate the Commission's annual report. I shall certainly look at his suggestion, in concert with the Commission, because it seems a little odd that, because of our rules and procedures, we cannot address the important work that the Commission does in representing all of us.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's point about the Prime Minister and Iraq, unlike the rather grubby attacks from the Conservatives. He said that this was not a matter of the Prime Minister's integrity but of his judgment. One issue of judgment that I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have taken into account is what the impact would have been if Saddam had been allowed to remain in power. We have seen in this morning's newspapers the most graphic description of the sickening legacy of Saddam's regime, in the form of a mass grave at Hatra containing at least 300 victims of his tyranny. There were pictures of the bodies of women, some pregnant, some with babies in their arms, who had been blindfolded and shot in the head. That is the kind of occurrence that could well have continued, had Saddam stayed in power under Liberal Democrat policy. When we talk about judgment, we need to take account of the consequences of allowing him to stay in power.
	On the freedom of information disclosure of Members' expenses, I very much welcome the all-party agreement. It affects everyone equally. I also take account of the hon. Gentleman's point that the media might not act responsibly in this regard, but I hope that they will. All the categories of expenses that will be available for inspection by our constituents are to do with our work here as MPs, and the work that we pay our staff to do to help us to serve our constituents properly. The House is now providing a level of service that is historically unprecedented compared with what was happening 10, 20 or 30 years ago, let alone before that. The expenses also provide for the operation of constituency offices and enable Members to live in their constituencies and, as we necessarily must, in London. Those are all properly accounted-for expenses that are claimed under the rules and should be treated accordingly.
	I apologise to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for not picking up on his point about September. He raised many issues and I am afraid that I missed that one. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) echoed his point about whether the absence of September sittings next year—on the advice of the House authorities about the need to proceed with security arrangements for the Chamber and the construction works involved—would be a pilot for the future. I know that Members have strong feelings about the conditions in which we came back in September—feelings that you share, Mr. Speaker. In the end, it is a matter for the House. There will be a vote on whether to retain September sittings—[Hon. Members: "On a free vote?] Of course it will be on a free vote, as it was before, because it was on House business. We will also have a vote on the sitting hours early next year, following the report of the Modernisation Committee, which is currently concluding its evidence taking and will shortly consider its recommendations.

Paul Truswell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, last year, several police authorities, including West Yorkshire, which serves my constituents, did not receive a full and fair share of the resources to which they were entitled under the revised funding formula? Can he arrange for Ministers to come to the House at the earliest opportunity so that we may press them on whether that situation is likely to be repeated this year or whether authorities such as West Yorkshire will get the resources that they need to continue to combat crime in our communities?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend raises an important local matter and I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will want to look into it. My hon. Friend will of course have the chance to question my right hon. Friend on Monday at Home Office questions. However, my hon. Friend will also acknowledge that crime has fallen rapidly under this Government and that some 10,000 extra police officers have been recruited, alongside more community wardens and community support officers, all of whom are helping to defeat crime in his constituency and police authority area, as well as through the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Leader of the House for finally arranging a debate on important House issues, not least programming and allied matters. I hope that, as a result, the House will give you, Mr. Speaker, additional discretion in respect of the time limits on speeches by Select Committee Chairmen when important reports by their Committees are discussed by the House. Will the Leader of the House print in the Order Paper in plenty of time the motion that will be debated? It is very important for the Procedure Committee to know whether he intends to accept all or at least a majority of its recommendations in respect of programming, which is vital to the House if it is to scrutinise Government legislation adequately.

Peter Hain: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question on that matter, especially given his role as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, a job that he does very well and with great diligence. I am happy to answer his points. The debate on Tuesday week will cover programming matters, deferred Divisions, short speeches, the carry-over provisions and the Strangers motion that arose out of the last report by the Modernisation Committee. I assure him that he will have plenty of time to consider the motions that I intend to table and I have been clearing the detail of them this week. I take his point about allowing Select Committee Chairmen greater scope than the current rules prescribe.
	The hon. Gentleman did not ask me about the other Procedure Committee report, but he has properly done so in the past—

George Young: I shall.

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman says that he will do so if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. The Procedure Committee report on Sessional Orders will be a matter for debate in the House in the very near future. I hope to provide early information of the date.

David Taylor: This time last week, I was in Dublin with my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and three peers. We were looking at the impact of the smoking ban in the workplace that the Irish Government have introduced. Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1738?
	[That this House notes that the medical and scientific evidence of the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace is now overwhelming; further notes that exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace may cause more than 700 premature deaths a year, three times the number killed in industrial accidents; further notes that the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health has concluded that exposure to secondhand smoke may increase non-smokers' risk of both lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease by about one quarter; further notes that the voluntary approach to smoking restrictions has left at least two million people still working in places where smoking is allowed throughout and at least another 10 million in places where smoking is allowed somewhere on the premises; further notes that the legislation in Ireland ending smoking in workplaces has been a medical and political success, resulting in a 97 per cent, observance rate, large falls in cigarette sales and a large rise in the number of smokers seeking to quit; believes that an end to smoking in the workplace would be a major advance towards a healthier population; and calls on the Government to commit itself to legislation ending smoking in all workplaces in the forthcoming White Paper on public health.]
	Has my right hon. Friend had any intimation of the likely publication date of the White Paper that has been imminent, according to the Government, for some time? This issue is more important than most to many people and it is time that we got to grips with those in the food, drink and tobacco industry who cause—sometimes inadvertently, but sometimes recklessly—such serious ill-health and premature death for many people.

Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that both passive and active smoking are serious health issues. The Irish experience will be very interesting, as has been the experience in New York and other parts of the world. We have some catching up to do and my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Prime Minister are both seized of that. My hon. Friend will be encouraged to note that the White Paper on public health will be published later in the year. Since there is not much left of the year, that will be reasonably soon.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for brief questions, because I have to consider the business before the House today.

George Young: Further to the helpful reply that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), can he confirm that the debate on Sessional Orders will take place in what remains of this Session? Can he confirm that he will table resolutions related to that debate to enable the House to express its view on the continuing disturbances in Parliament square?

Peter Hain: The debate will be next month, so it will certainly be before Prorogation. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify that. I will certainly look closely at the terms of the motions that we are drafting and bear in mind the point that he makes.

Martin Salter: My right hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently announced a major consultation on the Crossrail project, which will end on 27 October. He should also be aware of the strong view of the business community in the Thames valley that the western terminus for Crossrail should be Reading, not Maidenhead as is currently proposed. Will he ensure that the House is given ample opportunity to debate that important transport project once the consultation period is over?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is a great champion of Reading, including its football club, and he makes an important point about the western terminus being in Reading, not Maidenhead. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will note carefully my hon. Friend's powerful advocacy. The consultation period on that matter is open until 27 October, so he and his constituents will have an opportunity to make their case.

Alex Salmond: Is the Leader of the House aware that we have unfinished business from the Energy Act 2004, namely the final decision on connection charges to the grid from the National Grid Company and Ofgem? Is he aware that some of the proposals are unfair, discriminatory and sky-high for Scotland, and would sabotage not only the Government's alternative energy targets but Scotland's future as the renewable powerhouse of Europe? Can we have a debate as soon as the final proposals are published, so that we can illustrate to the Government the folly of allowing their energy policy to be dictated solely by Ofgem?

Peter Hain: Ofgem has an important independent regulatory role to perform and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to question that—at least, in general. The Government do not allow anyone to dictate their energy policy, which is the most coherent of any Government for a generation and will allow us to make secure progress. The hon. Gentleman talks about sky-high bills for Scotland. The only sky policies coming out of Scotland are the pie-in-the-sky policies from the Scottish National party. The idea that the Government would in any way sell Scotland short is ridiculous. Scotland has a great deal under this Government and the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that.

Paul Flynn: Would not the best way to add to the magnificent work the Government have done on aid to developing countries be for them to alter the terms of international trade? One of the greatest problems for the third world is that subsidised imports from Japan, the United States and Europe undercut its own production, while tariffs mean that it cannot export products to this country. May we have an urgent debate on the malign effects of the common agricultural policy on the developing world?

John Bercow: Excellent man.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is indeed an excellent man. I can confirm that. He is a good Welsh colleague.
	I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's point, as do the Government. The Government are leading the international drive to achieve trade justice and to stop those protectionist barriers ringing Europe, the United States and other rich countries, blocking opportunities for poor countries in Africa and elsewhere to lift themselves out of poverty. We are also leading the world on the lifting of debt and on the provision of much more overseas aid and development. Indeed, we have been leading Europe in pressing for reform of the CAP and have already achieved much. We would like to see the CAP completely abolished and will continue to press for that objective until we reach it.

Patrick Cormack: Bearing in mind that no institution, including Parliament, can function effectively without a degree of trust and confidentiality, will the Leader of the House join me in deploring what appears to be an extensive leak from the Joint Committee on Security yesterday? Will he further agree that we should consider disciplining Members who leak documents, whether they sit on the Government or the Opposition side? Any Member who leaks a document or a meeting of that sort should automatically be suspended from the service of the House for at least a month.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced and excellent parliamentarian and I shall bear in mind the points he made, as we all will. I read that report with great interest; it contained a lot that was news to me—I do not know whether it was accurate. The hon. Gentleman and I are members of the House of Commons Commission, which will shortly discuss those matters, but, in general terms, I take his point: we cannot operate, especially in the sensitive area of House security, without some trust and confidence among ourselves.

Mark Lazarowicz: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the growing consensus among Labour MPs, and perhaps on the other side of the Chamber, too, that the proposal to elect the House of Lords on a secondary mandate—the Billy Bragg proposal, as it has become known—would be a compromise acceptable to many of the different points of view on House of Lords reform. Given that point, is he prepared to make arrangements for an early debate, with, I hope, an indicative vote on the issue, to gauge the degree of support for that proposal among Members?

Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's desire for such a debate. There is a bit of unfinished business that, as a Government, we are determined to finish after the next general election—with the permission of the electorate. Personally, I am very taken with the idea of a secondary mandate—of an election of Members of the House of Lords at the same time as a general election, so that there is no independent route of countervailing power—which keeps this House supreme while democratising the House of Lords and dealing with its powers and procedures. The latter are, frankly, anarchic.

John Bercow: May we have an urgent debate in Government time on cancer services and the devastating effect of the postcode lottery on patients' chances of receiving them? In January 2002, my constituent, Margaret Griffin, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma and told that her condition was terminal. She now has only weeks or months to live. Given that the new drug, Velcade, could extend her life by up to 18 months, is not it both tragic and unacceptable that because her local health trust will not pay for the drug for her, even though it is available and has been provided in the Royal Marsden, the Royal Free and, I understand, in hospitals in Basildon and Bedford, she faces the grim prospect of an early death? What is to be done?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has properly raised that deeply troubling situation for Margaret Griffin and I am sure that we are all very sympathetic to him and to her.
	Obviously, I cannot comment on the detail, but the Secretary of State for Health will have noted his point. I can, however, point out that 99 per cent. of patients with suspected cancer are seen by a specialist within two weeks of being referred by their GP, which is up from 63 per cent. in 1997, despite a 30 per cent. increase in referrals over that period. As a Government, I think we have a good record of achievement, although there is much more to do and, in this case, clearly a lot more to do.

Gordon Prentice: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read early-day motion 1703 concerning Adam Evans and NHS dentistry?
	[That this House expresses its regret and disappointment at the decision of Adam Evans to abandon NHS dentistry from January 2005 and only offer private treatment from his Diamond Smiles practice in Barnoldswick; understands the shock and dismay felt by many people in the town at the loss to the private sector of a dentist whose NHS credentials were paraded with such fanfare in 2001 when his practice opened; recalls that Mr Evans sought the help and assistance of the honourable Member for Pendle in securing a grant of £30,500 from the NHS to establish the practice, telling the honourable Member on 20th February 2001 that he felt 'there is a severe need in the Barnoldswick area for NHS dental provision'; further notes Mr Evans' statement of 25th January 2001 to the Consultant in Dental Public Health at the East Lancashire Health Authority that the grant 'will enable me to create a modern NHS practice available to all those people in the East Lancashire area who are seeking to register for NHS dental care'; believes Mr Evans has let down his patients and public alike after proclaiming so loudly his commitment to the NHS; further believes that he has cynically used NHS funds to help him set up shop in the town; calls on him to return the £30,500 to the Primary Care Trust in January 2005 when he ceases to take NHS patients; and urges the primary care trust to take steps to establish a new NHS dental surgery in Barnoldswick to allow those patients at Diamond Smiles who wish to stay with the NHS to transfer across to the new practice leaving Mr Evans with those who are content to go private.]
	Is my right hon. Friend aware that NHS dentists are not on the breadline and can easily earn £65,000 a year, and does he share my concern that our efforts to rebuild NHS dentistry are being undermined by people such as Adam Evans who accept grants from the national health service to set up an NHS practice and then go private? Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and tell us what the Government intend to do to end that sort of abuse?

Peter Hain: I understand that the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale primary care trust is currently seeking advice about the contractual relationships in that matter. It is also discussing alternative methods of ensuring the continued provision of NHS dentistry in Barnoldswick. The PCT will continue to ensure the provision of emergency dental treatment. My hon. Friend will understand that we have invested more resources in recruiting and training NHS dentists and we shall continue to take that work forward.

Michael Spicer: Will the Leader of the House make sure that the parliamentary authorities allow Members to use the parliamentary computer system for casework during a general election period?

Peter Hain: We are looking into that matter, because obviously those of us who are tied into our constituency offices through the use of Commons equipment, as many are, cannot be in the situation where a constituent comes to our local constituency office and we are unable to provide them with a proper level of service. On the other hand, however, the normal purdah rules affect us, because we cease to be Members of Parliament after Prorogation and are simply candidates. The issue is being looked into at present and I gladly sympathise with the point the hon. Gentleman raised.

Julie Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an urgent debate on women in prison? I am sure that he is aware of the tragic suicide of yet another woman prisoner, last Monday, which brings the number of women suicides in prison to 12 this year. Many of those women have mental health problems and prison is not the right place for them. Will my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent debate on policy for women offenders?

Peter Hain: I am sure that the whole House will want to praise my hon. Friend for the consistency of her campaign on the troubling rise in suicide among women prisoners. The incidence of youth suicides in prison is also troubling. There will be an opportunity to raise the matter at Home Office questions on Monday and I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to press the Home Secretary and will raise the issue to see whether we can make an improvement in that troubling situation.

Sue Doughty: The Government are bringing forward the draft Gambling Bill, which changes the emphasis from out of town gambling to town centre gambling and could bring three casinos to the centre of Guildford—none of which are wanted. Will the Government take into account international research into the harm done when children are allowed to play slot machines and the link between that and the problems of adult gambling?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Lady will be aware, the Bill has been subject to extensive pre-legislative scrutiny and the Government have taken account of many of the important points made during that process. The Bill is about properly regulating gambling. Whether any casino—let alone three—comes to Guildford is a matter for the local authority, not for the Leader of the House or even for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The hon. Lady should properly take her concerns to the local authority rather than raising them in this place. However, I emphasise the point that the Bill is welcome legislation for regularising and bringing up to date law and procedure that desperately need it.

Llew Smith: The Leader of the House will be aware that Kofi Annan has declared that the war with Iraq was illegal and that the Iraq survey group has declared that the weapons of mass destruction did not exist. Does he accept that we owe it to the tens of thousands of people who have been—and are being—slaughtered in this worthless war to revisit and debate the issue? As a result of the debate, we would hopefully hear not only an apology, but an apology without qualifications. Although an apology would not be enough, at least it would be a start.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend and I have an honest difference of opinion on the matter. I respect his point of view, but I am entitled to expect him to respect mine and that of the Government. He mentions the deaths that have occurred since the action took place last year, but I would like him to remind the House of the nearly 1 million deaths that occurred under Saddam's murderous tyranny.

Llew Smith: I demonstrated against that.

Peter Hain: Indeed my hon. Friend did, as did I, so we are in the same situation.
	It is important for us to bear in mind what Saddam did. I do not know of any ruler in history other than Saddam Hussein who has murdered up to a million Muslims. If he had continued in office, we would have seen further examples such as those uncovered by the new Iraqi Administration. They have identified 40 mass graves throughout the country. We do not yet have all the evidence of the full horror of Saddam Hussein, but he would still be in power if my hon. Friend's views had been taken into account when we took the decision last year.

Keith Simpson: The Leader of the House and hon. Members will be aware that over the summer period and the early autumn when we had our problems with security, there was a lot of press coverage in which disparaging remarks were made about the Speaker and the so-called men in tights. There was an inference that some of that briefing had come directly from either the Leader of the House or his staff. Will he take the opportunity, as I am sure that he will want to, to deny that either he or his staff were involved in that?

Peter Hain: I am happy to deny that, and since the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity, I put it on record. If he had been in the Chamber during previous business questions, he would have known that I expressly praised the role of the Doorkeepers in the invasion by the huntsmen and on the previous occasion. They perform a fantastic job for us. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should have lowered the tone of the consideration of such a serious matter by making that kind of accusation.

Harry Barnes: May I press for that debate on Iraq? There are people with different perspectives on the matter, ranging from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), who asked for the debate, to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. There are some of us who believe in a third way—I thought that the Government might be interested in third ways. We say that the invasion itself was wrong and that some of its consequences were predictable, but that everything must now be done to assist democratic forces in Iraq to build a proper, decent society. Although there might still be big differences between both sides, there might be an area on which we could get agreement, so let us have the debate.

Peter Hain: I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend's point of view. Whatever opinions are passionately held about the merits, or otherwise, of going to war in Iraq, the truth is that we are where we are. The objective now, as he says, is to ensure that we have a democratic Iraq that includes a strong and independent trade union movement. We must support that enterprise and use all our efforts and resources to ensure that the Iraqi people have the chance to run their own country for the first time in at least a generation, if not ever.

John Taylor: When the House came back in September, apparently to debate fox hunting, certain parts of the motoring industry in the west midlands—Rover, Jaguar and, in my constituency, Land Rover—were in a state of dire anxiety. May we even now have a debate on the motor industry in the west midlands, and will the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry reply to it?

Peter Hain: We have Transport questions on Tuesday and the hon. Gentleman can put his point to the Secretary of State. I do not accept that we came back in September only to debate fox hunting because we debated several important pieces of legislation during those two weeks. Job losses in manufacturing, including those in the midlands, are important, but the fact is that under the Tories, nearly a million manufacturing jobs were massacred by the early 1990s alone.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Points of Order

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was in January this year that I first raised a question that was alluded to today regarding the incessant noise of the protest in Parliament square. We have heard that matter linked today to the Procedure Committee report. I have spoken on numerous occasions to the head of the police in the Palace of Westminster who tells me that he has made many representations to the police outside the Palace to take action about the noise, but that they do not do so. Is it not time that the Leader of the House picked up the telephone, spoke to the police and asked them why any demonstrator should be allowed to broadcast his rantings and ravings at a volume that is totally unacceptable to the general public?

Mr. Speaker: As the Leader of the House said, we will have an opportunity to debate the matter. Please be assured that I have also complained to the police on behalf of Members and staff who have to put up with the noise and that I shall continue to do so.

Peter Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House failed to explain why the announcement on the gambling Bill was leaked to the Financial Times and The Times newspapers this morning. To make matters worse, an official spokesman for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was quoted in The Times, which shows the contempt that Government Departments seem to have for the House of Commons. Will you reiterate yet again that such important announcements should be made to the Commons, not the press?

Mr. Speaker: I keep saying that, and on Tuesday I mentioned the press being given advance information. We have a Press Gallery, and excellent correspondents get a pass from the Speaker so that they can be there to hear the case that Ministers make. I do not know why phone calls must be made the night before when they can be here. They seem to enjoy coming here to listen to our debates. The best advice that I can give Ministers is to come to the House of Commons because the press will hear what they have to say.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I would not want to keep pursuing the matter.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As Ministers of the Crown have consistently ignored your rulings on the situation, if it goes on, will you consider summoning one of them to explain to the House why such a thing has happened? That would set a good precedent for the others.

Mr. Speaker: Sometimes Back Benchers ignore my rulings as well. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I receive requests for urgent questions from time to time and bring Ministers before the House regularly.

BILL PRESENTED

School Transport

Mr. Secretary Clarke, supported by The Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Johnson, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mr. Stephen Twigg and Dr. Stephen Ladyman, presented a Bill to make provision for school travel schemes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 162].

EU Justice and Home Affairs

[Relevant document: The Twenty-eighth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 42-xxviii, The EU's Justice and Home Affairs Work Programme for the next five years.]

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union document No. 10249/04, with ADD 1 and ADD 2, Commission Communication on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: assessment of the Tampere Programme and future orientations; notes that the Communication forms the basis of negotiations for the next European Union Justice and Home Affairs Work Programme; and supports the Government's position that the Work Programme should focus on measures that complement the efforts of Member States and will be of most benefit to European Union citizens.
	I am pleased that the European Scrutiny Committee managed to secure time to debate this important issue in the Chamber. We live in a world in which crime does not recognise national borders. Although we maintain our right to have national systems of justice and law enforcement in operation, in pursuing criminals and seeking justice we have recognised that by co-operating we on occasion have a good result in foiling those who want to make victims of our citizens, whether they are in the UK or in other parts of the EU. It is important that we discuss the new justice and home affairs work programme because it will guide EU work in this sector for the next five years.
	We know that co-operation on counter-terrorism, asylum and immigration and on fighting crime makes a real and positive impact on the lives of UK citizens, but Europe should not be involved for the sake of it. The basis of our engagement with Europe is respect for national sovereignty—a view that is shared by many other member states. The Commission communication is a useful tool to stimulate discussion, but that is all. There is much in it we can support: an emphasis on mutual recognition of judicial decisions rather than harmonisation and a commitment to strengthen efforts on counter-terrorism and on document and border security. However, we do not agree on some things. In that regard, we have much in common with colleagues on the Committee. We are working with others to ensure that concrete proposals reflect UK priorities. We do that by our involvement in positive engagement and by winning support from other Ministers throughout the EU.

Nick Hawkins: As is so often the case with the Government, the Minister gives the impression that there is nothing to worry about. Did she see the superb article about the matter by the distinguished home affairs editor of The Daily Telegraph on Monday this week? He explains that if the House does not kill the document now, what is regarded as simply a discussion document to "take note of" will be pushed through on the nod next time and we will be stuck with it. When so little comes from the Committee to the Chamber, does she not recognise that it is our responsibility to stop it and to stop it now?

Caroline Flint: I have seen the article and the Conservative party press release parrots the same myths and distortions. It is important to have time in the Chamber to discuss the subject. I strongly believe, as a Home Office Minister and a constituency MP, that in fighting terrorism and crime and, importantly, in tackling abuse of our immigration systems, there are times when we have to work with others across the EU. I make no apology for that.
	I shall be clear about dispelling some of the myths that have been put about by papers such as The Daily Telegraph and by the shadow Home Secretary only this morning on the radio—and where is he? It would be nice if he made time to focus on the issues. From his contribution on the "Today" programme, I thought he could do with a bit more briefing.

Keith Vaz: The Minister dealt adequately—in fact, superbly—with the shadow Home Secretary this morning. Tampere is about co-operation. It is not about giving up powers. It is about European partners working together to combat crime and illegal immigration. It has been a success so far. Will she pledge that at the summit, when we have Tampere II, the Government will reinvigorate the agenda to ensure that there is even greater co-operation?

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He has my assurance that when it comes to catching criminals, tackling terrorism and dealing with fair migration, but also abusive migration systems, we will wholeheartedly look for ways in which we can co-operate while at the same time preserving what is right for a nation decide to decide on.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: I want to make some progress—

William Cash: The hon. Lady is going to duck the question.

Caroline Flint: No. In fact I think that I am going to pre-empt it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) mentioned success. It is important to talk about the situations that affect people's lives. The European arrest warrant has been of practical value at an EU level by ensuring quick and efficient extradition between member states. Already this year, we have contributed to 28 arrests in the UK and returns to other EU countries. Those people have been accused of criminal offences and we have helped the justice process. As a result of our requests, 16 people in other EU countries have been returned to the UK to stand trial. That is important. It is important that when offences are committed against UK citizens there is no place to hide for criminals throughout the EU.
	On asylum, Eurodac is a European fingerprinting system. It has helped to reduce asylum shopping and the ability to make multiple claims. Consistently, we return 150 asylum seekers a month because of that co-operation. Applications are also down.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: I want to make a little more progress.
	Europol is improving the exchange and analysis of criminal intelligence. The police college is exchanging best practice, not so that there is one training system for police throughout Europe, but simply to share best practice. The UK is leading on the police college and it is a way of improving co-operation. Eurojust is improving co-operation in cross-border prosecutions so that criminals can be properly punished wherever they go.

Michael Connarty: I thought that the Minister would emphasise the Government's position, which is supported by members of the Committee. We do not support the idea of giving Europol its own investigative powers, which would turn it into a European police force.

Caroline Flint: I concur with my hon. Friend. We do not think that there is a role for that, but there is a role for exchanging intelligence and information. We want some of the other member states to put more into that process to give our police the ability to share intelligence information to track the criminals who cross different borders. I thank him for making that point. It is another aspect of the justice and home affairs work programme. We need to examine what we have agreed and ensure that it is implemented before we embark on new ideas.

William Cash: Does the Minister concur that the Committee made it clear that the work programme affects policies that are at the core of national sovereignty? Furthermore, there is a risk that the proposals on the area of freedom, justice and security encourage the notion that such an area is a unitary state, separate from the member states that make up the EU community. In relation to the Committee's recent consideration of procedural rights in criminal proceedings—another draft framework decision—does she also accept that she has not tackled the argument that we put in the Committee, that the EU measures should stick to cross-border cases because criminal proceedings are a matter for national Parliaments?

Caroline Flint: I agree that it is right to take every opportunity—the Committee is right in that regard as well—to reaffirm our red lines on European co-operation. I was going to say something about that later, but let me deal with it now. The Commission's document is for discussion. It does not set out concrete proposals. No one has signed up to it. That will be done by Ministers who are sent by nation state Governments to decide on such issues.

Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Flint: No, I want to finish this point.
	On judicial co-operation, we strongly support the embedding of mutual recognition as the cornerstone of criminal judicial co-operation. It is important to recognise that those words are not just mine; the Commission uses the same phrase in its document. We welcome the fact that it recognises that as the first principle. It ensures, through mutual recognition, good co-operation between member states without requiring harmonisation of member states' criminal justice systems.
	We will work with other member states because we are not on our own. One of the benefits of being at the heart of Europe is that we can make the case and make our position stronger. We will ensure that the EU continues to respect the distinct and diverse legal traditions of member states. Let us not forget that the United Kingdom does not have just one legal system. In particular, we will ensure that the things that concern us will not be changed. So the prosecution of individuals must remain a national competence and we do not support the proposal for a European public prosecutor, and many other member states agree with us. We have ensured through the treaty that we have safeguards so that if there is a threat to our legal system and criminal procedural law we have an emergency brake that we can apply to make sure that there is a unanimous decision.

Nick Hawkins: Is the Minister giving a firm undertaking at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government that if anything that they oppose is changed before the matter comes before the Council of Ministers they will veto it? All too often, Ministers say that they do not agree with parts of EU documents that subsequently go through on the nod at the Council of Ministers. The Government claim that they tried to protest, but to no avail. That is the thin end of a very large wedge that is destroying Britain's independent sovereignty, and that is why we are so angry.

Caroline Flint: If Opposition Members wish to make a speech, they should put their name down on the list and queue with everyone else who wishes to speak. However, I challenge the hon. Gentleman to look at my record at the Justice and Home Affairs Council—I assure him that I never pass anything on the nod. There is no question of the UK signing up to a harmonised legal system, and the communication does not propose one. The constitutional treaty, as I said, rightly protects key areas of our criminal procedural law, but we accept some approximation of criminal acts and penalties. It is important to look at the issues involved, such as serious cross-border crime.

John Wilkinson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: No, I am in the middle of explaining something, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman listened.
	The European framework decisions on combating terrorism are important. Previously, eight countries in the EU did not have adequate counter-terrorism measures, but as a result of co-operation and discussion they have since implemented legislation. The UK is fortunate to have adequate legislation on counter-terrorism. I make no apology for saying that the sexual exploitation of children in the EU is another important issue in cross-border crime, but we would need to see robust justification for any new measures. Criminals do not respect national boundaries, and increased practical co-operation between the police, courts, immigration and customs services has the potential to make a difference.
	The Commission communication rightly recognises that people must experience the many benefits of justice and home affairs co-operation to appreciate the value of Europe, which is why we agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that in the next work programme we must evaluate the impact of measures already agreed and focus on making them work at a practical level. We need less rhetoric and more action and accountability.

John Wilkinson: Will the hon. Lady now give way?

Caroline Flint: I will do so, provided the hon. Gentleman makes a point, not a speech.

John Wilkinson: It is just a small point. Will the hon. Lady assure the House that there will not be an extension of qualified majority voting in justice and home affairs?

Caroline Flint: The position on which matters QMV can be used has already been discussed, and we are in full agreement. We have made sure that we have safeguards on both criminal procedural law and asylum and immigration so that we do not have to take part in certain discussions if we do not want to. We believe, however, that in some cases QMV is helpful, enabling us to get things done quickly and effectively to achieve a genuine impact on our communities.
	I am conscious that Members wish to contribute to our debate, but I wish to deal with immigration in a little more depth. In the past 24 hours, the Conservative party has peddled the myth that we are giving up control of our frontiers. I want to nail that myth, which is quite wrong. We can opt in, where it is in Britain's interest, to measures that tackle asylum and immigration issues. There is no justification for the Tory suggestion that there is a threat to control over our frontiers.

Angus Robertson: Does the Minister not find it odd that a Conservative spokesperson pontificated on the "Today" programme this morning but does not have the good grace to come to the House to make his points at the Dispatch Box?

Caroline Flint: I quite agree. If someone is going to perpetuate myths and allegations they should at least be here to hear the answers.
	The new justice and home affairs work programme should seek to strengthen external borders, concentrating on practical measures to improve cross-border co-operation and to respond to operational demands. It should continue to embed and evaluate measures that are helping to reduce the number of people who are using and abusing the asylum system—there has been a fall in applications of 70 per cent. since October 2002. We should exploit new technology to improve document security, including biometrics and identity cards. We can use all those methods to try to make sure that we have a better system in which we co-operate where necessary but act on our own where that is in our national interest.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As the Minister knows, Britain has opted out of the Schengen agreement, but will she confirm that under the QMV regulations that the House is being asked to approve we would no longer be able to do so and would lose control of our borders?

Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and I shall write to him in detail to explain why.
	Illegal immigration knows no borders. We can work together to strengthen practices and procedures to ensure that they cannot be exploited by organised criminal gangs. It is important to secure cross-border co-operation on the trafficking of human beings, which takes place throughout the EU. Men, women and children are trafficked throughout Europe and, as the Minister responsible for reducing organised crime, I know only too well what that means. Hon. Members may know that we are conducting a review of prostitution. Many young women are caught by the vice market in EU cities, and we should seek to work together to end that unacceptable practice. We will continue our own independent efforts, but the EU can sometimes add extra value when tackling such issues.
	The new justice and home affairs work programme represents a genuine opportunity to improve the freedom, justice and security enjoyed by UK citizens, both at home and abroad. I assure hon. Members that the Government will defend UK interests robustly in negotiations, but I hope that everyone accepts the justice and home affairs agenda, which is about real issues that affect real lives, including those of UK citizens, who may be victims of crime and can expect a reliable standard of justice wherever they are in the European Union.

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out from "orientations" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
	"but believes that the Government has failed adequately to support the national interest in its response to the Tampere Programme, including its failure to halt the proposal to introduce co-decision and Qualified Majority Voting on immigration, asylum, visas and border measures and the Commission's aim further to harmonise the civil and criminal justice systems of Member States."
	The approval in 1999 of an EU programme of action covering visas, asylum and immigration, civil and criminal justice, and police and customs operations to create an area of freedom, security and justice was always going to lead to an ambitious agenda. The way in which the programme has developed presents grave dangers to the sovereignty of this country. Our debate is particularly relevant against the background of the preparation of the proposed EU constitutional treaty, a substantial part of which impacts on the Tampere agenda.
	Some of the concepts in the programme are complicated and couched in legalese. Others are more obvious, but we should not underestimate the huge implications for British justice and parliamentary sovereignty of giving up our veto in home affairs policy, giving European police investigating powers and adopting minimum sentences. We should also be aware of the federal state implications of appointing a European public prosecutor. The communication from the European Commission that we are debating today, however, merely provides a summary of progress to date, whereas we clearly need a full evaluation of the measures that have been implemented in member states over the past five years.

Keith Vaz: The Tampere agenda, as agreed in 1999, dealt with co-operation between EU partners. Is it Conservative policy to oppose co-operation on crime and illegal immigration?

Jonathan Djanogly: I shall specifically address the question of mutual recognition, but the Tampere agenda goes much further than co-operation and attacks the generally held concept of mutual recognition. It is bizarre that we are expected to endorse a set of proposals that form part of the programme for the next five years without a full review of those measures' potential benefits. I would like to say that I am confident that the Government will not attempt to commit our nation to the proposals, the end results and benefits for our citizens of which are unknown, but I am not. A blind Commission is leading a blind UK Government towards an undefined federal superstate, to which we say, "No, thank you very much".

Michael Connarty: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) was listening to the Minister, who confirmed that the Government oppose Europol's having investigative powers. Had he taken the trouble to read the document, he would know that the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee are opposed to a European public prosecutor. He should stick to facts rather than mythology.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Government maintain that they oppose further investigative powers for Europol, but that does not mean that the Commission is not suggesting that Europol should have those investigative powers or that the Government have stood up for British interests.
	A key issue identified in the European Scrutiny Committee report is the Commission's desire to introduce co-decision and qualified majority voting on those measures—immigration, asylum, visas and borders—that fall within article 67(2) of the EC treaty, supposedly in an attempt to increase the amount of work that is completed. However, the alarm bells will start ringing for anyone who cares to examine those proposals.
	The principle of unanimity and the possibility of veto, where required, are in place for a reason. Such checks and balances maintain our nation's right to decide which measures are most appropriate for British citizens in the European arena. The Commission itself has identified that many of the issues that fall within that programme remain at the core of national sovereignty, and so they should. That is why I am concerned by the prospect of the Commission imposing legislation on member states through QMV. That must be resisted at all costs, and the Government are not actively fighting that threat to our country's ability to withstand legislation from Brussels that is not in the British public's interest.

Robert Key: Did my hon. Friend share my amazement that the Minister did not seek to justify the proposals in her bad-tempered introduction to the debate? All she said was, "The system works wonderfully. We have got this example and that example. It is all absolutely super, isn't it?" If the system works so well, why do we need new proposals?

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister's opening comments were extremely defensive and she did not constructively support the agenda.

Gisela Stuart: The Opposition are in serious need of some help. Some of the proposals, such as Eurodac, which is an enforcement unit that uses fingerprinting in order to deport people, are extremely good. Some countries opposed Eurodac, but QMV allowed us to achieve an objective that we could not otherwise have obtained, which was good. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the consequences if the House votes no after today's debate?

Jonathan Djanogly: The Tampere agenda contains 23 proposals that relate to policies on crime, most of which have either been fulfilled or are on the way to being fulfilled—it is not a pie-in-the-sky agenda; it is a real agenda. After this debate, I hope that the British Government return to the Commission and start to say no on issues such as, most importantly, getting rid of our veto.

William Cash: May I offer my hon. Friend some assistance on the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)? If the House were to reject the proposal—I hope that it does—the Government would be in the dog-house and would be obliged to give effect to the sovereign will of Parliament. That is the key question, and we should reject the proposals.

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend states the obvious, although his point may be optimistic given the Government's position.
	It has been proposed that the European corps of border guards should fall under the control of Brussels. We agree with the Minister that the long-term goal of establishing a European corps of border guards is objectionable in principle as well as being impractical. However, we support the development of co-ordination mechanisms designed to strengthen member states' ability effectively to guard their own borders. Although additional resources to support that function are welcome, they should not be ploughed into the creation of the European corps of border guards, but used by member states to improve their own national guards' training.
	The British people want control of our borders and the right to draw up our own policy on asylum. In an ICM poll from earlier this year, 77 per cent. of those polled wanted Westminster to exercise control over asylum procedures. We need an accountable and efficient policy that addresses the needs of those migrants who have a genuine claim and who seek our help, as well as preventing bogus claims from those who would abuse our system. Can we guarantee the British public that those requirements will be met by a single European policy covering all member states? I think not. Indeed, the Government currently fall short of those requirements. Given the disaster of the Government's asylum policy, they probably cannot wait to offload their problems on to Europe. Conservative Members regard that as a cop-out, pure and simple.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend knows that I fought those battles for a number of years from the Front-Bench position that he now occupies. Since the Government came to power, they have promised in the House to oppose things, but then signed up to them, however reluctantly, because of the inclusion in the same package of something else that is good. They have spent years saying that they will oppose things and then failed to do so.

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I think that he will relate to my conclusions.
	Having had the pleasure of participating in the Statutory Instrument Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee B debates on both the European arrest warrant and the harmonisation of criminal sanctions, I have become particularly familiar with the Commission's ludicrous proposals on criminal justice. The principle of mutual recognition has long been deemed the cornerstone of European judicial integration. The Commission denies that it intends to challenge legal systems in individual member states through the promotion of harmonisation—so far, so good—so why does the communication say that it is necessary to avoid a situation in which two separate legal regimes cover cross-border crimes and internal disputes?
	The communication also states:
	"duality could be inconsistent with the aim of a single area of justice for all".
	How is it possible to adhere to mutual recognition, which apparently supports the judicial traditions of each member state, without the operation of separate regimes? The answer, of course, is that it is not possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said earlier in the debate. That is a clear indication that the Commission deems the ultimate result to be interference in the judicial systems in operation in each member state. It strikes me that the Government seem all too willing to accept the Commission's proposals at face value without true, open consideration of the Commission's real aims. This represents a clear threat to national sovereignty. Is the Minister going to stand by and let these measures—which purport to further the principle of mutual recognition, but in fact aim towards a unitary legal system—creep in? In no way can such aims comply with and respect the subsidiarity principle. The Scrutiny Committee got it absolutely right and went to the heart of the matter when it said in its report:
	"If Parliament has not chosen to unify the separate legal systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we see no justification for this being attempted by the European Union."
	That is spot on. We see no justification for it either, and we urge the Government to do everything in their power to prevent it. Trust is based on knowledge, and without greater knowledge of the workings and standards of judicial systems in other member states, it is difficult to see how even the procedure supporting mutual recognition will be adequately implemented.
	The Commission has stated that it supports further action to define and fix minimum penalties for certain offences, to end life sentences, and to move towards further approximation—for which I read harmonisation—of national laws to secure effective mutual recognition of judgments. Again, harmonisation rears its ugly head. At the extreme end, we are facing a massive overhaul of the criminal laws of all member states, yet that prospect raises insurmountable practical problems in a Union where national systems are so incredibly diverse and bear so little resemblance to each other.

David Heath: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great care. Over the past few months, he and I have appeared many times in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, where we have both prayed in aid the views of the Law Society. Has he, too, received the Law Society's very long briefing—it runs to 33 pages—which makes it clear that it supports the mutual recognition programme because it has considerable advantages for practitioners?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman misses my point. I support mutual recognition, as does he and as do the Government, but this agenda is not, in practice, about mutual recognition. That is our worry.
	Aside from the practical issues, we also believe that the agenda is objectionable in principle. Do we, as a nation, want to submit our decision-making power on criminal policies and sanctions to the will of Brussels? I do not think so. This country has developed to date a legal system of which we can and should be proud. Accordingly, we should firmly rebuke any potential threat to it.

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman refers to a legal system. Is he not aware that there are three different legal systems in the UK? Will he explain the position of the Scottish Conservative party in that regard and give one example of any concern that has been expressed north of the border?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman may have missed my earlier comments in which I referred specifically to the different judicial systems in the United Kingdom and how their own systems are respected. This agenda will end that.
	A prime example of a crime in one country that may be entirely overlooked in another is that of animal rights terrorism, which is prevalent in my constituency. Public opinion on that has changed massively in this country over a very short space of time, yet many other member states have no concept of what the crime is, let alone ideas about how to tackle it. The power to determine which crimes attract which sentences should never be removed from Westminster. It is only by retaining control over our own system that the British public will feel secure about the fact that justice is obtainable and adaptable to the demands of the day.
	We also oppose the creation of a European public prosecutor, as such a position promotes harmonisation rather than co-operation.

John Denham: We are discussing the five-year JHA—justice and home affairs—programme. Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House, in all seriousness, that he believes that in five years' time this country will be unable to have laws dealing with animal terrorism, which he cites as an example of how that programme will go wrong? If he really believes that it will affect our right to have laws on animal terrorism, he should say so; if he does not, he should accept that he has raised a completely irrelevant and nonsensical issue as part of his scare campaign.

Jonathan Djanogly: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has got completely the wrong end of the stick. I am simply maintaining that the definition of a crime and the sentence that attaches to it will be considered differently in each member state and should therefore be the prerogative of that member state's judicial system. I do not think that the Government would detract from that—the problem is that they are not going over to Brussels to tell it what we want.
	As I said, we oppose the creation of a European public prosecutor. Sufficient justification has yet to be provided for such a move, which seems more suited to preparing Europe for federal statehood than to any practical purpose. The attainment of security throughout the member states of the Union underpins the achievement of freedom and justice. As the Minister said, the biggest threat to that in recent years has been terrorism, so the prospect of increased co-operation between law enforcement agencies of all member states is to be welcomed.
	We do not believe, however, that there is justification for extending the powers of Europol to become a separate, fully functioning European police force. In its current form, Europol makes large contributions to the exchange and analysis of information, rather than undertaking investigatory work. As such, it has a significant role to play in increasing co-operation and the sharing of best practice between member states, and it should continue to do so. That is not to say, however, that Europol needs to become a full Union agency feeding from the Community budget.
	As with the Government's position on the Commission's Green Paper on criminal sanctions, I sense that although they have a lukewarm response to much of this communication, they are not prepared to do much about it. That is dangerous. It leaves the door open to creeping harmonisation, whereas what is needed is a strong rejectionist stance in favour of maintaining the British interest such as that which my party would provide.
	Why are the Government taking such a soft position on this? In the conclusion to the communication, the Commission took the opportunity to reinforce their approval of the proposed constitutional treaty. This statement particularly grabbed my attention:
	"the final adoption of the Constitutional Treaty and its rapid entry into force are becoming essential, as this will offer the legal and institutional means of meeting . . . expectations".
	The key word is "essential". As Conservative Members have argued time and again, the constitutional treaty is by no means essential either for our country or for the European Union. If this agenda is to go forward, the Commission's proposals for the next five years must be viewed as a way of seeking increased intergovernmental co-operation and progress in the fields of justice and home affairs. That ceases to be the case at the point where the proposals represent an attempt by the Commission to reinforce their desire to gain the ability to impose potentially unwanted legislation on member states that have lost their right of veto and the power to control their own country's policies and, therefore, their futures. That is exactly the situation that could become a reality under the umbrella of the constitutional treaty.

Michael Connarty: rose—

Jonathan Djanogly: To the extent that the Labour party will support a yes vote for the European constitution, I cannot see how it will wish to destroy its own campaign—

Michael Connarty: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) is clearly not prepared to give way.

Jonathan Djanogly: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given way many times, including to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), and I am about to conclude my speech.
	I cannot see why the Labour party should wish to destroy its own campaign by attacking elements of the treaty, such as the giving up of our veto on home affairs, that are included in the Tampere agenda. This therefore becomes Labour's Trojan horse whereby it is preparing to sell this country for the sake of its constitutional treaty. It is a chilling prospect for our nation, but one that we need to face up to in the context of the Government's continued silence on this programme's true implications for our justice system and our national sovereignty.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Many Members hope to catch my eye but we have limited time for the debate, and I hope that they will bear that in mind when making their contributions.

Keith Vaz: This is an extraordinary debate, partly because of the contribution that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), but also because of the astonishing absence of the shadow Home Secretary. I know where he was last night; he was at the Dorchester hotel—celebrating Diwali, tucking into his chicken tikka masala and rice.
	I know where the shadow Home Secretary was this morning; he was on the "Today" programme, debating with my hon. Friend the Minister. Where is he this afternoon? Why is he not here? A new precedent has been set—shadow Ministers do not bother to come to the House of Commons to defend their position—but I am not surprised that he is not here: my hon. Friend gave him such a trouncing on the "Today" programme that he is too frightened to enter the Chamber.
	I had the privilege of representing the Government at the Tampere Council between 15 and 16 October 1999. I remember it well, because it was the first time that member states came together to consider the issue of justice and home affairs in this way. An agenda was set out, and it is right that we should be reviewing it now.

Oliver Heald: Before the hon. Gentleman gets to his main thrust, does he agree that there are four Opposition spokesmen, covering constitutional affairs and home affairs, on the Front Bench, whereas only two Ministers are present?

Keith Vaz: Never mind the quality, feel the width, I say. The point is, where is the shadow Home Secretary? It is a disgrace that he is not here.
	The purpose of the Tampere Council was to create an area of security, freedom and justice in the European Union, and it is right that we should be reviewing it this year. It is also right that the European Scrutiny Committee has produced such an excellent report, and recommended that we should have a discussion on the Floor of the House. I commend members of the Committee for doing so.
	The fact remains that this agenda was important in 1999 and became even more important because of the events of 11 September. The achievements of the agenda over the past five years have kept the issue of justice and home affairs right at the centre of the Government's thinking. I commend the Minister and her colleagues for going to the justice and home affairs meetings, defending the Government's position time and again, and making a positive contribution to the way in which the agenda has been taken forward.
	As with all European agendas, there are disappointments at the fact that certain benchmarks have not been achieved that should have been achieved by now, but the purpose of December's European Council is to give this whole agenda a new thrust to ensure that we consider it in the light of what has happened over the past five years.

John Wilkinson: Does the ex-Minister not think that the EU, instead of pursuing its hegemonistic ambitions in justice and home affairs, should concentrate on matters closer to home and not permit such disgraceful episodes as the sacking of the chief accountant, Mrs. Andreasen, for exposing fraud, maladministration and corruption in the European Commission?

Keith Vaz: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are wandering rather wide of the motion.

Keith Vaz: I shall abide by your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
	The fact remains that we must make progress. I want to raise three brief points, because I know that lots of my hon. Friends want to take part in the debate. First, there has been success in combating illegal immigration because of the work that has been done by the Home Secretary and his predecessor, the Foreign Secretary. Other EU nation states must take responsibility for the immigration problems in their areas. We cannot solve the problem of illegal immigration unless there is good, strong co-operation between our countries. That is shown, frankly, by the number of asylum seekers and of claims for asylum, which have declined over the past few years. That has been one of Tampere's successes.
	The second point relates to combating crime. Surely the Conservative party must appreciate the importance of ensuring that those who commit crimes are brought to justice as quickly as possible. They should not be able to hide in another member state to evade justice. If they were able to do so, that would make a nonsense of the EU, which is why the European arrest warrant has been such a success. It was so difficult to get extradition before impetus was given to the justice and home affairs agenda. If someone commits a crime in another area of the EU, they must be brought to justice. By and large, people have to be brought to justice in their member states, because that is usually where the crime is committed.
	The third point—the question of different judicial systems—is important. That is brought home to us by the European Scrutiny Committee's excellent report. Why is it that every time a European document is debated in the House, Opposition spokesmen go quite berserk, saying, "This is the last straw and the superstate will be created"? I am surprised that the hon. Member for Huntingdon did not mention the abolition of the pound. I realise that every speech that Conservative Members make is written with reference to what Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Kilroy-Silk might think about it, because all Conservative Members are concerned about is protecting their position from the United Kingdom Independence party.
	The fact remains that we need a serious debate—a grown-up debate—in the House on European matters, which will allow us to explore the crucial issues that are at stake in the EU. There is absolutely—

Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Vaz: No, because time is short.
	There is absolutely no question of our judicial system being changed because of this take-note document; it is absolutely ridiculous. We have a completely different judicial system from that in Scotland, and we know that four of the six Members who serve on the Committee have Scottish constituencies. Their judicial system is completely different from ours in England. There is no question of one being created. There is no question that we will be harmonised with the French judicial system or the German judicial system, which are quite different from the systems here.
	The one point on which I can agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon is that we have a judicial system of which we can be extremely proud. Of course it is the role of our Government—not just the Home Office, but the Department for Constitutional Affairs—to protect the integrity and independence of our judiciary.
	Finally, I want to address the question of mutual recognition. Of course we want to ensure that there is mutual recognition. It is absolutely vital that decisions taken by courts in member states—

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Jimmy Hood: He has just come in!

Keith Vaz: I will not give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) because, as the Chairman of the Committee points out, he has only just wandered in to give some legal advice to the hon. Member for Huntingdon. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield should wait his turn if he wishes to take part in the debate, or perhaps he was busy at the Dorchester, like the shadow Home Secretary.
	The fact remains that mutual recognition is a core principle of what we have been discussing. My constituents want to know about the practical problems, which my hon. Friend the Minister so eloquently placed before the House, because if they go to France and have an accident or there is a problem they want to know whether they will have access to justice in such countries. Those are the practical questions being asked by our constituents, involving the practical co-operation that must exist between member states, the judicial authorities and the police forces. That is what we are talking about here, so let us hear no more nonsense about a federal state in respect of this document. Let us have some proper support from this Conservative Opposition—supporting the Government as they stand up for Britain's interests.

David Heath: I open by thanking the European Scrutiny Committee for its work and for the quite sensible views it has expressed in the report. The subject has considerable import, and it should be put before the whole House. My only regret is that there is still a problem with our procedures. If the Committee considers a matter to be of serious import, it is somewhat bizarre that it should be debated on the Floor of the House to enable other Members may participate, only for the debate to be so brief that they cannot do so.
	There would have been more debate if the matter had been referred to European Standing Committee A, B or C, because a Standing Committee would have had longer to consider it. I modestly suggest that it would be better for the matter to go first to the European Standing Committee, after which, with the benefit of its advice, we could debate it on the Floor of the House.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman makes a most constructive suggestion about the matter going from the European Scrutiny Committee to the European Standing Committee and then to the House. Does he agree that when the European Scrutiny Committee states that the matter is so vital that the whole House should consider it, there should be a full-day debate in Government time?

David Heath: I am not sure that I would go quite that far, but the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments.
	What saddens me is that, thus far, we have not had a debate about the European Scrutiny Committee report. We have had the nonsense of an amendment, thought up as a jolly wheeze by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who could not be bothered to attend the debate that he started, although he was happy to go on the radio this morning.
	I am going to defend the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), because it was suggested earlier that he was not here. He may not have been sitting up and paying attention sufficiently to be seen on the other side of the Dispatch Box—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that time is limited for the debate. Perhaps we can concentrate on the motion rather than on some of the personalities involved.

David Heath: I am happy to do so. I was defending the honour of another Member of the House, whom I felt had been traduced.
	The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) used his rather lamentable contribution as a proxy for a debate on the European constitution. We know, or at least we think we know, that we will have a referendum on the constitution—we had certainly better have a referendum on it—so there will be an opportunity to debate those issues then; this is not that opportunity.
	I am surprised that there has been no mention of the debate that is convulsing a lot of the European Parliament and European Commission: the identity of the person who will put these proposals into effect. The name of Rocco Buttiglione has not been mentioned, yet we have the extraordinary situation of the civil liberties committee rejecting his nomination as European Commissioner—on sound grounds, I think, given the views that he has expressed and the actions he has taken. I hope that the debate on his confirmation, or otherwise, will be on the right terms—that it will be not on what he believes but on the way in which he intends to pursue the proposals that are before the Commission. I also hope that Mr. Barroso will take careful note of what parliamentarians are saying about Mr. Buttiglione's suitability for that role. He may be a perfectly good commissioner in another role, but he is not the right man to take forward a programme that is concerned with the liberties of individuals and the fight against discrimination.
	I hope that not a single Member of the House does not believe that co-operation between member states is essential to fight organised crime, terrorism and domestic crime, drug smuggling and the like.

Keith Vaz: The Conservatives.

David Heath: I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that they simply choose to use this as a Hartlepool agenda to try to get themselves out of a hole. It is an unfortunate misuse of the proceedings. It is a great shame that we have these announcements of doom every time we have a European debate. I am staggered—[Interruption.] A cameo appearance by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. It is staggering that we are debating this at all because we were told after Amsterdam and Nice that there would be no Parliament to have these debates—it was the end of the world every time. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to join us—[Interruption.] Yes, he is.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the House please settle down? This is a debate on a serious motion.

David Heath: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman in his seat. Of course, his hand signed many of the treaties that his colleagues find so objectionable now.
	I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that we wish to maintain the integrity of our legal systems. I do not hear a single person who wants the English, Scots or Northern Irish legal systems to be eroded by decisions taken elsewhere. I hope that the Government will stand firm on that. I am confident that they will because they have said so—and, in this instance, I believe them.
	I hope that we have effective border controls. I have my doubts about British border controls. I wish to see a single border force, which I think would be more effective than the disparate arrangements that we have at the moment. I recognise that we have had a massive expansion of the European Union, that there are significant new issues about border control that need to be effectively acknowledged within the European Union, and that new member states may need assistance from better established and perhaps richer states to provide the border controls that we want. That, however, should not affect what we do in this island state. We have an advantage over most of the other member states.

Mike Hancock: If we are going to help the new member states of the EU to tighten their border controls, is it not a bit invidious for anyone in the Chamber to suggest that we need not take the issue seriously? It is wrong if we are reluctant to take any strong action and to support a Government who, for once, are moving in the right direction.

David Heath: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend.
	We are trying to ensure that people cannot slip through the criminal net. Is there any hon. Member in the Chamber who wants criminals who ply their trade across borders to get away scot-free, simply because we do not have the apparatus to deal with them effectively? Of course there is not. Therefore, if we can find ways of recognising each other's judicial systems—improving them on occasion and recognising their strengths, in a context of respect—it is sensible that we do so.

Ian Davidson: Do the Liberals disagree with any Government policies on this matter? If not, would any of the proposals be red line items for the Liberals?

David Heath: I am working my way down the list, but we believe that the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee have the balance approximately right in most areas. As I develop my speech, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is the case.
	Some people see the minimum standards as a Trojan horse, but, again, do we have no concerns about whether British citizens will be dealt with appropriately in EU member states? I suggest that we do, that we want reasonable standards of justice to pertain in the European Union and that that is a prerequisite for a common area of security, which is what this discussion is all about.

Paul Tyler: My hon. Friend might recall the case of my constituent, Caroline Dickinson, the young school girl who was murdered in Brittany some years ago, which is still outstanding. It is a classic example of where we want to be absolutely reassured that standards of investigation and justice are common throughout the European Union. If this is a step in that direction, and I believe that he is right in accepting that it is, surely we should all support it.

David Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was a tragic case and it perfectly illustrates the point that we wish to pursue.
	Europol is an area where we may have a slight difference of opinion with the Government. We are concerned about the operation of Europol within the United Kingdom. Some hon. Members may recall that it was the Liberal Democrats who, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, opposed the statutory instrument that gave immunity to Europol officers within the UK, perhaps embarrassing the Conservative Opposition in so doing. We take seriously the limits to what Europol can and should do, although we do want it to be effective and accountable. At the moment there is a limit to its accountability. I should like to see a more direct relationship between Europol, as part of the European Union structure, and the European Parliament so that, for example, the director of Europol is confirmed before the European Parliament. That seems a perfectly sensible suggestion, albeit one to which the Government are not, I think, acceding.
	I have concerns about fundamental rights in some of the new countries to have entered the European Union. I strongly support enlargement, but in some of those countries the basis for human rights is tenuous. We should be extremely careful to ensure that all member states live up to the responsibilities into which they have entered in joining the EU and, indeed, through membership of the Council of Europe. British Governments of all colours have constantly promulgated that.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman is kind to give way yet again. In relation to the European arrest warrant, is he aware that it is easier to have someone extradited to Slovenia than it is to the United States? Given his earlier comments on states that have just entered the EU, is he not concerned about that?

David Heath: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had not said that because it tempts me into a debate on our extradition treaty with the United States. People can be extradited from Britain to the United States but there is no reciprocal arrangement from the United States to Britain, and that is absolutely wrong. I would abuse my position, however, if I discussed that now.
	It is absolutely essential that we have a degree of co-operation and co-ordination on asylum policy. Otherwise, anything that we do is likely to be meaningless because of the free movement of citizens within the EU, and I think that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden signed his name to that document. It is important that we have a common view on how to manage asylum and immigration issues properly.
	I do not view the Law Society as the ultimate arbiter, nor do I view it as na-ve, as does the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). It assessed the Tampere process and broadly supports it because it believes that the agreement is in the interests of justice. That is an important accreditation.
	Sometimes, the European Commission is its own worst enemy. An example of that is in its wording on qualified majority voting:
	"The legal and institutional constraints of the current Treaties, where unanimity in the Council generally remain the rule, partly explain these difficulties. The Member States are sometimes reluctant to cooperate within this new European framework when their interests are at stake."
	I should hope they are unhappy and reluctant to co-operate when their interests are at stake. If the Commission thinks that that is not the proper role of sovereign Parliaments and member states within the European Union, it needs a lesson in what the proper attitude towards subsidiarity is. That is the sort of language that allows the straw men to be put up by people who have no interest in what is contained in the documents, but want to foment an argument within the country that they believe to be to their electoral advantage. That is a sad reflection on the state of oppositional politics.
	On this occasion the Scrutiny Committee has it about right.

Jimmy Hood: I intend to please you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to disappoint Opposition Members by sticking to the Scrutiny Committee report and the subject of today's debate. I am pleased that the Leader of the House has given us this opportunity. I support earlier comments that it is a pity that we do not have more than one and a half hours to discuss such an important issue.
	The European Scrutiny Committee published in July its report on the Commission's programme for the next five years. We say in the report that these proposals relate to matters that are "at the core" of our national sovereignty. Therefore the programme directly affects the lives of individual citizens. I am pleased that the report has been so widely supported in the House and in particular that the Government also support it.
	Under the treaty of Amsterdam, the European Community acquired in 1999 a new objective:
	"to provide citizens with a high level of security in an area of freedom, security and justice."
	In that year the European Council held a special meeting at Tampere to set priorities for the European Community as
	"an area of freedom, security and justice."
	That meeting approved a detailed programme for action for the next five years, covering civil and criminal justice, asylum and immigration, and police and customs co-operation. As we know, the measures under title IV of the EC treaty on visas, asylum and immigration and other policies relating to the free movement of people do not apply to the United Kingdom unless it expressly opts in to them. At Tampere, the actions were agreed by unanimity.
	These new Commission proposals failed, in the Committee's view, to evaluate the practical benefits achieved so far as a result of the Tampere programme of 1999, in relation to
	"creating an area of freedom, security and justice, covering criminal and civil justice, visas, asylum and immigration, and police and customs cooperation."
	Our report questions whether there is a risk that the expression
	"an area of freedom, security and justice"
	is encouraging the notion that such an area is a unitary state separate from the member states which make up the European Union. Regardless of the countless assurances from Ministers, it is not easy to be comfortable with the Commission's rhetoric throughout its proposals.
	On harmonisation of asylum policy, the European Scrutiny Committee argues that we should not go beyond the establishment of reasonable common minimum standards. The proposals for the creation of a European public prosecutor and a European corps of border guards and to give Europol some investigative powers excited the Committee. The report states:
	"We have not yet seen sufficient justification for giving the European Union its own prosecutor, border guards and police force."
	Again the Government have indicated support for that view.
	The extension of the Community's activities into crime prevention could conflict with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. We also agreed that the scope of measures relating to civil and criminal justice should be strictly confined to those which are necessary for mutual recognition, and should not affect purely internal cases or otherwise encroach on the integrity of the legal systems of member states; otherwise there would be no limit in practice to EU competence to harmonise national legal systems. Our concerns are compounded by the Commission's apparent wish to rely on qualified majority voting to secure the adoption of its justice and home affairs legislation against the wishes of some member states. As has been pointed out, the Tampere agreement in 1999 was agreed by unanimity.

Michael Connarty: Obviously it is a joy to hear such a clear elucidation of the points that we considered and put forward and with which, as my hon. Friend said, the Government have agreed. Does he not think it essential that in summing up our Minister makes it quite clear that, in terms of the motion before us, negotiation will always be approached by the Government on the basis that they will stand by the commitments they gave to support the points put forward by him and by our Committee?

Jimmy Hood: I certainly would agree with that; indeed, the last paragraph in the report asks the Government to do that. The Minister's contribution suggested that she has taken on board the comments we made; we should welcome that.

David Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jimmy Hood: All hon. Members, including Conservative Members, know that I always try to be courteous and polite in the House. However, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am also a member of the Chairmen's Panel, and we do have conventions in the House. It is a bit rich for the shadow Home Secretary to come in half way through the debate and then seek to intervene on a contribution by an hon. Member who has sat here from the beginning, so if he will excuse me on this occasion, I intend to carry on with my speech and not accept an intervention.
	The Commission states that substantial progress has been made in most aspects of justice and home affairs since 1999, but that the original ambitions of Tampere have been hampered by institutional constraints and sometimes by the lack of sufficient political consensus. The proposals state:
	"It was not always possible to reach agreement at European level for the adoption of certain sensitive measures relating to policies which remain at the core of national sovereignty. The legal and institutional constraints of the current Treaties, where unanimity in the Council generally remains the rule, partly explain these difficulties.
	The Member States are sometimes reluctant to cooperate within this new European framework, and when their interests are at stake they do not hesitate to threaten the use of the veto . . . in order to lower the level of ambition of the Commission's proposals and reject [the European] Parliament's opinions."
	The Commission says that once legislation is adopted, the limited role of the European Court of Justice and the restricted powers of the Commission are an obstacle to ensuring it is effective.
	The Committee criticises the fact that the communication does not evaluate the practical benefits and measures already adopted, and says that it is therefore not possible to judge whether expected benefits have been achieved.
	"Moreover, the Communication does not state what practical benefits the Commission expects from the priorities it proposes for the next five years.
	We consider that it would be prudent, therefore, for member states to withhold commitment to the inclusion of these proposals in the work programme until they are presented with, and have considered, such a statement."
	The European Scrutiny Committee adds, on unanimity:
	"It seems to us reasonable and proper for member states to withhold their agreement from measures they do not support and which, to use the Commission's own words, 'remain at the core of national sovereignty'. It bodes ill for the future if, on such sensitive matters, the Commission envisages reliance on QMV to impose on Member States legislation to which they are opposed".

Jonathan Djanogly: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is it therefore the view of the Committee that QMV should become a red-line issue for the Government; in other words, should the Government insist on not giving up our national veto?

Jimmy Hood: The Committee would agree with the view that QMV is not suitable when deciding the issues that are contained in the proposal.
	On visas, asylum and immigration, I refer to the Commission's proposals again. One proposal is the development of an integrated border management system and visa policy. The external agency and co-ordination mechanisms must be
	"supplemented with the long-term objective of establishing an European Corps of border guards to complement the national border guards."
	Visa policy should address the security of documents—including biometric identifiers—and improved consular co-operation.
	Another proposal is a common policy on the management of migration flows, including proposals relating to links between legal and illegal migration, such as legal admission for employment purposes, better integration of legal migrants, targets for legal admissions, an effective policy on returns and readmissions and partnerships with countries of origin to deter illegal immigration and trafficking of human beings.
	The Government support the development of a common EU asylum policy, which quickly and fairly identifies those in need of protection.

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that one thing that the Government secured is that even where there is QMV, on asylum and immigration issues we have an opt-in to any measures that protect our frontiers? Also, in regard to criminal procedural law, we have an emergency brake which would mean that any issue that we felt undermined the judicial systems throughout the United Kingdom could be put to a European Council where a decision would have to be made unanimously?

Jimmy Hood: Yes I certainly agree and the Committee accepts that in its report.
	As I said, the Government support the development of the EU asylum policy, which quickly and fairly identifies those in need of protection whilst tackling abuse and inefficiencies in the system. They support a more practical approach to EU co-operation, in particular through partnership with countries of origin and transit, but are not convinced of the need for further harmonisation of EU asylum policy. Again I took comfort from what the Minister said earlier.
	The European Scrutiny Committee says:
	"the Commission has not presented a sufficient justification for the proposal"
	for the creation of a European corps of border guards. We say that the Convention did not support a reference to such a corps in the draft treaty and that the proposal is objectionable in principle. We say:
	"Control over admission is a good illustration of the sensitive matters which remain at the core of national sovereignty."
	The Scrutiny Committee also notes that the common policy on asylum is not necessarily the same as a uniform policy and, while recognising the importance of common minimum standards for asylum, agrees with the Government that the case for further harmonisation remains to be made.

Wayne David: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I agree with the comments and criticisms of the European Commission made by the European Scrutiny Committee. However, does he agree that what we need to do is ensure that in future the European Commission is held to account to a greater extent both by national Parliaments and the Council of Ministers, and that is not in any way an anti-European argument?

Jimmy Hood: I will not surprise my hon. Friend when I say that I very much agree with him. As Chairman of the Committee and as a member of the 16-member Committee, I should say that we were very much maligned by some sections of the press recently for our scrutiny successes. However, I can say that as a Committee we very rarely, if ever, follow party lines in our deliberations. We see our function as looking after the national interests of this Parliament, and anything that we do and say and anything that we report on has that at the core of its considerations.

John Denham: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why the debate on the proposals becomes so polarised is the truth that the Commission has produced an extraordinarily poor-quality JHA document? In fact, if it came to my hon. Friend the Minister in her red box this weekend as a work programme from officials, she would chuck it back in the box and say, "Go away and do it again." Should not one of the messages that we send to those in the Commission be that, if they produce such vague and ambiguous documents, they lay themselves open to the type of misinterpretation that we have heard from the Opposition today?

Jimmy Hood: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and for making that important point. In accepting it, I can reinforce the fact that much of our work identifies what I would class as incompetence. Such things are, by their incompetence, provocative and cause unnecessary provocation in national Parliaments of other member states as well. That message should go out loud and clear, and it is one that the Committee often sends to the Commission, both in our reports and, if we are given the opportunity to meet or take evidence from individual commissioners, in Brussels.
	On civil and criminal justice, the Commission proposes the creation of a European judicial area, respecting the legal traditions and systems of the member states. It says:
	"The development of the European judicial area has neither the objective nor the effect of challenging the legal and judicial traditions of member states, and total harmonisation would be neither proportionate nor appropriate . . . For this reason, the principle of mutual recognition has been placed at the heart of European integration in this field . . . However, mutual recognition requires a common basis of shared principles and minimum standards."
	It adds:
	"It will be necessary to avoid a situation where in each member state there are two separate legal regimes, one relating to the disputes with cross-border implications and another purely on internal disputes."

Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jimmy Hood: No. I am sorry; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
	Measures proposed include the definition of fundamental guarantees, the conditions of the admissibility of evidence and strengthening the protection of victims. The Commission calls for a coherent crime policy to enable the European Union to fight serious crime effectively and for action to define fixed-minimum penalties for certain offences.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jimmy Hood: In a moment.
	The Commission also calls for a European public prosecutor's office to be created from Eurojust. On the European public prosecutor, the Government say:
	"We support strong action to tackle fraud against the Union's interests. But any role of a European Public Prosecutor in this area is dependent on our agreement. We will not agree to anything that is not in the national interest."
	On minimum standards, the Government have
	"reservations about the statement that mutual recognition requires a common base of shared principles and minimum standards, which suggests that criminal procedural law measures are a pre-condition for mutual recognition."

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jimmy Hood: I will in a moment.

William Cash: We have not got many moments.

Jimmy Hood: In a moment.
	The European Scrutiny Committee emphasises that the principle of mutual recognition does not necessitate uniformity of procedural or substantive law. We regard
	"such uniformity both as unnecessary and as prejudicial to the integrity of the different legal systems of the Member States."
	The Committee is concerned by the implications of the Commission's view that it is necessary to avoid a situation where each member state has separate legal regimes for disputes with cross-border implications and for purely internal disputes.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jimmy Hood: Yes, I certainly will, briefly.

William Cash: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should have liked to say much more, but I shall keep it to some simple points. First, the European Scrutiny Committee has condemned the proposals. That is basically what the report boils down to. Secondly, when the vote takes place, I hope that hon. Members who have contributed to the report will follow me into the Lobby. Thirdly, in 1967, the then Labour Government said:
	"Nothing in Community law would . . . materially affect the general principles of our criminal law . . . "—
	and the same was repeated in 1975. In a nutshell, the fact is that, as the Leader of the Opposition said at the Conservative party conference:
	"Politicians . . . have made promises they have failed to keep."
	This is about the existing treaties, and those treaties must be renegotiated, repealed and amended.

Jimmy Hood: For my sins and for reasons better known to some higher authority, I am rather fond of the hon. Gentleman. He served on the European Scrutiny Committee before me, and I have served on that Committee for 17 years. I always leave him to make his own points, even though I do not necessarily understand them too clearly.
	The Committee's report says:
	"We draw attention to the danger that measures which are ostensibly concerned with mutual recognition will have the effect of creating uniform rules which will then apply to all cases, whether they have any cross-border implications or not. As we have commented before, Commission proposals on the 'area of freedom security and justice' have appeared to treat this 'area' as synonymous with a unitary State, with only one legal system. We do not believe that there is any treaty basis for such an approach, or that it complies with the principle of subsidiarity. If Parliament has not chosen to unify the separate legal systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we see no justification for this being attempted by the European Union."

Angus Robertson: I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has said until now. Is he concerned that the explanatory memorandum on that very issue—he notes the important separate legal systems—has had no input from the Scottish Executive, as noted in the paper itself?

Jimmy Hood: I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and has made on previous occasions. Indeed, the report covers that issue as well.
	In trying to reach my conclusion, I wish to say that the Commission's proposals include strengthening the role of Europol, including giving Europol some powers of investigation, extending the work of the European police college and creating a legal framework to improve the sharing of intelligence between enforcement authorities and possibly making Europol a Union agency, financed from the Community budget.

Ian Davidson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jimmy Hood: No, I am sorry. I will try to be fair.
	The Commission's proposals include counter-terrorism activity, including the creation of an information exchange centre, action to combat the financing of terrorism, and action in the fight against serious crime, such as public-private partnerships. The European Scrutiny Committee recognises the possible benefits of further co-operation between member states and improved exchanges of information—
	It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 115, Noes 277.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 114.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union document No. 10249/04, with ADD 1 and ADD 2, Commission Communication on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: assessment of the Tampere Programme and future orientations; notes that the Communication forms the basis of negotiations for the next European Union Justice and Home Affairs Work Programme; and supports the Government's position that the Work Programme should focus on measures that complement the efforts of Member States and will be of most benefit to European Union citizens.

HORSERACE BETTING AND OLYMPIC LOTTERY BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
	That the following shall apply to the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8th January 2004.
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any further Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 10
	 — 
	Control when no exclusive licence

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was almost not in my place just now. That will serve me right for believing the Whips when they told me that there would be three Divisions, not two. I would also like to apologise for the absence of the Minister for Sport and Tourism, who has guided the Bill through its many stages. He cannot be with us today as he has ministerial duties elsewhere, but he sends his apologies to the House and has left me to deal with this last stage of the Bill.
	I propose that the House accept this amendment that was made to the Bill in the House of Lords. In the original draft of the Bill, provision was made for point-to-point racing to be made exempt from regulatory requirements. During the discussions on the Bill in another place, concern was expressed that those provisions were not generous enough, and that the original maximum of four days proposed by the Government risked bringing a number of point-to-point races within the regulatory structures.
	The Lords amendment that we are now considering reflects the Government's positive response to representations. The Government wished to avoid such an unnecessary regulatory imposition, and accordingly tabled an amendment to raise the maximum exemption to seven days of racing. Representatives of point-to-point organisations have welcomed the amendment, as I do now. I hope that the House will accept it.

Hugh Robertson: Before I comment on the amendment before us, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Members on both sides of both Houses who have worked so hard to scrutinise the Bill. Although we are considering only a few amendments today, the important debates that have taken place have played their part in ensuring that the Government are aware of the concerns of racing. In a Bill that frequently requires Parliament to trust the Government to keep their word, it is important to get commitments clearly on the record, if not always in the Bill.
	I would like to pay particular tribute to the dedication and hard work of my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who have brought their considerable experience, knowledge and passion for racing and sport to the Committee. I believe that the debates were the stronger for that. I should also like to pay tribute to Lord Moynihan in the other place, who was ably assisted by the noble Lord Luke. He clearly did a first-class job, and the Bill is the stronger for it. The British Paralympic Association has particular reason to be grateful, as we shall hear later.
	I should highlight the fact that we are considering Lords amendment No. 1 entirely due to the foresight of my colleague Viscount Ullswater, who has ensured that the interests of point-to-point racing have not been forgotten. Currently, the Tote does not run pool betting at point-to-point races. However, it has been prepared to grant authority to the secretaries of the various point-to-point committees to run their own pool-betting operations for a nominal fee. In 2003, 82 point-to-point fixtures ran their own Tote.
	Clause 10(1) amends the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 by substituting a new section 4. Under the Bill as drafted, the new section 4(4) allowed for a point-to-point exemption certificate to be applied for from the Gaming Board. However, that application had to specify a maximum number of days, not exceeding four, on which horse racing could be carried out. In the other place, Viscount Ullswater rightly pointed out that two point-to-point courses, Garthorpe and Larkhill, were to hold more than four meets in 2004.
	I welcome the Government's decision to look again at this provision. On Report, the Government tabled the amendment that we see before us today, which changes the limit from four to seven. I acknowledge that the amendment represents a step forward by the Government in protecting point-to-point racing. I am interested, however, in understanding exactly how the Government reached the figure of seven meets. I accept that it is a compromise, but why that particular figure?
	Viscount Ullswater called for the limit to be scrapped completely. Why have the Government ignored that option? So far, the Government have failed to provide a justification for maintaining a limit of any sort. Indeed, the Minister in the other place provided a curious answer:
	"My Lords, seven is better than four . . . Seven is satisfactory for all point-to-point racing, except for Larkhill, as far as I can see. This is a compromise; I hope it is an acceptable compromise."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 July 2004; Vol. 664, c. 43–4.]
	That does not really let us know a lot about the Government's thinking.
	We do not intend to overturn this amendment, which is certainly a considerable improvement on the original drafting of the Bill. It would be useful, however, if the Minister could give the Government's reason for choosing seven rather than any other number.

Estelle Morris: I readily acknowledge the work of Viscount Ullswater in the other place and accept that the amendment came about because of the work that he did and the representations he made. That is the spirit in which the legislation has gone through its stages in both Houses. That is not unique, but it is unusual, and I pay tribute to that. I read the same bit of Hansard as the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), which is why I was smiling a little as he quoted it.
	Unfortunately, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a scientific explanation as to why it is seven and not four. It is a compromise, as the Minister in the other place said. It has been accepted by those with a keen interest in the issue and it was accepted by Viscount Ullswater. I think that we should accept that and move forward. The amendment will not jeopardise any point-to-point races in coming years and if a change is thought necessary in future years, the Government will by then have evidence against which to set any further amendment. This is a case of test it and see. Given that no point-to-point race will be discriminated against, I hope that the House will agree the amendment so that we may make further progress.
	The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate question. All of us like to think that legislation is rooted in extensive evidence and careful logical thought, but sometimes we have to estimate what will work best in certain circumstances. When I read the report of the debate in the other place, I thought that that had happened in this case. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept that explanation. In any case, I welcome his general comments on the amendment.
	Lords amendment agreed to.

Abolition of levy

Lords amendment: No. 2.

Estelle Morris: I hope that this second amendment will find favour with the House. It is an important, although not a major point. It acts on the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the other place. Clause 15(1) will enable the Government to commence, under order-making powers, the abolition of the horserace betting levy system. In the Bill as originally drafted, no parliamentary procedure was specified. The Committee was concerned that consequential amendment could be made to primary legislation without Parliament having the opportunity to consider it. The Government accepted that recommendation and moved an amendment to provide that the negative resolution procedure shall apply to all orders made under clause 15(1), and not the positive resolution procedure.

Hugh Robertson: Given that the occasions when the Government decide they should give more power to Parliament rather than keep it for themselves are few and far between, I can only welcome the amendment. We should be grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's seventh report, which recommended that clause 15 should be amended. The Committee wrote:
	"Clause 15(1) provides for an order, subject to no Parliamentary procedure, activating repeals and the dissolution of the Horserace Betting Levy Board . . . Clause 15(2)(c) enables the order under clause 15(1) also to make consequential provision which can include amending enactments. The Committee normally expects such provisions to be subject to the affirmative procedure but, in this instance, since the provision is limited to consequential provision and in the light of Schedule 4 to the bill, the Committee recommends that the appropriate level of Parliamentary procedure in this case is negative procedure."
	If Members understand that, they are doing much better than me.
	Accordingly, in Committee, the Government tabled an amendment to provide that the negative resolution procedure will apply to all orders made under clause 15(1). It is right that the Government responded appropriately to the recommendations and I am grateful to them for doing so.
	My colleagues in the other place expressed several concerns about the timing of the abolition of the levy and have sought assurances to protect the legacy of the Horserace Betting Levy Board's good work. Unfortunately, despite the force of our arguments, we did not manage to convince the Government that they should make important changes, so, given that the amendment places a check—albeit a small one—on the Government's power to abolish the levy, I offer it our support.

Richard Page: I echo the words of the Minister and of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson). The Committee proceedings were conducted with a conviviality that is not usual in political affairs; the whole Committee came together in a single drive to ensure that, in particular, the Tote was returned to a racing trust. I was surprised and delighted by that atmosphere and only wish that our other debates could be conducted in similar fashion.
	I welcome moves for the abolition of the levy. It has been a source of friction over the years. I can understand the Secretary of State's wanting to get rid of it at the earliest possible opportunity, but there have been a number of difficulties.

Don Foster: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the spirit in which our deliberations in Committee were conducted. In view of his belief, which I share, that the most appropriate sale would be to a racing trust, does he acknowledge that some difficulties were created in another place by some of his colleagues who took a rather different view? Does he disagree with them?

Richard Page: I am very disappointed that the hon. Gentleman endeavours to bring friction where there was peace and unanimity. However, bearing in mind the political party he comes from, that situation can be taken as the norm. My noble Friend was simply trying to tease out further the Government's commitment to a sale to a racing trust. He in no way wanted to scupper the Bill or see it destroyed; he did what he did for the purposes of clarity and explanation. Personally, I would have gone about things slightly differently, but there we are. We all take individual approaches to our aims and objectives in life.
	I welcome abolition of the levy, but I want to ensure that what takes its place will be for racing, so I welcome the Minister's statement that the provisions will be subject to resolution by Parliament. It is extremely important that the statements by Ministers over the years that the sale will be to a racing trust actually come to pass. We take the racing industry very much for granted in the UK. It is not fully appreciated that 100,000 people are employed in the industry and if it is put at risk it could go abroad, as so much of our manufacturing has done. All the trials and tribulations and dramas of the past year or so have actually put our racing industry on to a strong basis.
	Some of the major owners—the gentlemen from the Arab states—have behaved with a dignity and maturity that I can but admire, and in some cases wish was emulated in the rest of the industry, and have given tremendous support. I want nothing that would drive them away. The amendment offers further reassurance about the way forward, so I can only hope that when it reaches the statute book the Government move quickly to see the Tote put into the hands of a racing trust for the benefit of racing.

Alex Salmond: I fully support the racing trust concept for the future of the Tote and welcome the acceptance of the amendment, which applies some additional parliamentary protection in respect of the abolition of the levy. I want to make three points about why that protection may be important.
	The levy has been criticised; it has been a matter for dispute. One advantage enjoyed by the levy board is that by custom and practice it has always included an independent Scottish member to protect the particular interests of Scottish racing. That provision was not in the legislation, but came about through custom and accord. Many Scottish Members are worried that the successor organisation, the British Horseracing Board, has no such organisational connection with Scottish racing. Some of us held a cross-party meeting with the BHB this morning to discuss that point, and we await its proposals on how it will accommodate the specific dimension of Scottish racing in its structures. The Minister for the Arts will know that the Minister for Sport and Tourism has expressed his sympathy and support for, and interest in, the matter, so I hope that she is aware of the situation.
	My other two points relate to the funding of racing. We read in this morning's Racing Post that the future system of support for the racing industry will depend on hypothecation relating to betting turnover. However, at least one major bookmakers firm, Ladbrokes, intends to try to charge the industry to supply it with information on which to base the hypothecation. While a firm may legitimately charge a fee for commercial data, the future funding of racing will depend on that information, so it will not be commercial data. Incidentally, that information cannot come from only one company because it must be produced by all bookmakers and betting exchanges if it is to provide a solid base of information for the future funding of racing. What is the Minister's view of a company that apparently wants to hold the rest of the racing industry to ransom by demanding payment for information? Such an arrangement would put a question mark over the basis of the new funding settlement.
	Whatever the faults, trials and tribulations of the levy board, it provided a balance so that informed judgments could be made on developments in racing that were for the good of the sport as a whole. The various interested parties in racing have reached an agreement that in addition to the hypothecation from betting revenue there will be a development fund. The fund will apply to races that might not be especially commercial and might involve only a few runners, yet are essential preparatory races for other events because if they were not to take place, the eventually championship races up to which they led could encounter considerable difficulties. The development fund will be part of the new concept, but it might make up only as little as 6 per cent. of racing's overall revenue. It cannot be right that the money available to support racing as a sport should be such a small percentage of the overall revenue generated by the racing industry.
	I support the amendment, the Government's willingness to accept it and the camaraderie with which we will, I hope, proceed towards a racing trust running the Tote. However, before we all celebrate the departure of the levy and the levy board, we must remember that that system of funding included vital protections. It is up to the Government to tell us that those protections will continue to be offered under the new framework towards which we are moving.

Estelle Morris: I thank the hon. Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for their contributions. It is clear from our short debate that it is essential for us to accept the Lords amendment. There is general agreement about the course of action that has been taken, but understandable worry about whether the benefit that has accrued to the industry will continue under the new arrangements. Indeed, the industry is thriving and it contributes to our nation economically and in other ways.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will appreciate that I have come to the Bill exceptionally late in its passage and, if I am honest, I have not taken a day-to-day interest in it throughout its stages in the Commons and the Lords. I shall refrain from commenting on the article in today's Racing Post.
	I hope that the procedure that we are adopting means that there will be an opportunity for both Houses to discuss legitimate concerns about percentages, the meaning of data that may be sold as a commercial activity and the protection of the industry. I hope that the general principles are agreed and that debates on detail will be held in both Houses.
	Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 31
	 — 
	Distribution Policy

Lords amendment: No. 3.

Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 4.

Estelle Morris: As this is the final group of amendments, I join the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Robertson) in taking the opportunity, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism, to thank him and to congratulate all hon. Members, officers and officials who have worked so hard to get the Bill through both Houses.
	The amendments, tabled by Lord Moynihan, Lord Luke and Lord Glentoran, are sensible. It is right that they be included in the Bill. It was no one's intention to rule out discussion or consultation with the British Paralympic Association. The amendments add the British Paralympic Association to the list of bodies that the Olympic lottery distributor must consult when preparing or revising its distribution policy and to which the distributor must send a copy of any policy or revision.
	The Government fully endorse the central role of the British Paralympic Association in our bid for the 2012 London Olympics and Paralympics, and the other place was happy to accept the amendments. I propose that the House accept both of them.

Hugh Robertson: I am delighted that the Government have accepted our amendment. It is even more satisfying when the purpose is so important and the cause so patently just. Lord Moynihan rightly identified that the Bill failed to include the British Paralympic Association in its list of statutory consultees on the Olympic lottery strategy. I am pleased that that omission has been corrected.
	It is right and just to take stock of the achievements of our Paralympic athletes and their association. Our Paralympic athletes gained 35 gold medals, 30 silvers and 29 bronzes in Athens. It is right that we should pay tribute to that outstanding achievement. I and other members of my party had the privilege of meeting at our conference in Bournemouth two gold medal winners—Darren Kenny in cycling and Danny Crates in athletics. I am sure that other hon. Members had the same opportunity at their conferences.
	Each performance is an individual achievement, but our Paralympians receive an outstanding service from the British Paralympic Association. It is clearly best placed to advise on the specific specialist requirements of its athletes and their sports. The Bill, as amended, will allow that expertise to be tapped into by the new Olympic lottery distributor. That is why I support the amendments.

Don Foster: Many of us had the opportunity to congratulate our Olympic team and I now echo the words of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) in praise of all members of our Paralympic team.
	We fully support the amendments. We are delighted that the Government accepted them, although we acknowledge that they intended to involve the Paralympic organisations at all stages. However, it is an important gesture to include the British Paralympic Association in the Bill because that demonstrates the importance that this House and the Lords place on the Paralympic games. They are a crucial part of the package for which we are bidding in 2012. We are not bidding just for the Olympics to come to London, but for the Paralympic games as well. Both those games will bring an enormous benefit to London and all parts of the UK. It is for those reasons that the Liberal Democrats fully support the activities of the team that is working so hard to ensure that the bid is successful and both games come here.
	I share the comments made by others about the effective way in which the Bill was scrutinised in both Houses. I pay tribute to all the members of the Committee, who worked hard on the Bill. Will the Minister, who has taken up the baton at short notice, pass a message on to her right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism, congratulating him on his work on this and related issues? Nevertheless, there remain a number of concerns about the Olympic lottery fund, which the amendments address.
	Members on both sides of the House believe that the new Olympic lottery game will begin if—and I hope that this is the case—we mount a successful bid for the 2012 Olympics. The money that the game will raise, however, is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the overall lottery contribution to the funds. As a result, there will probably be a modest reduction in the money made available to other good causes, and the House understands that the loss will be distributed equally among them. I would be enormously grateful if the Minister confirmed that that is the Government's intention and that nothing in the lottery Bill expected in the Queen's Speech will change that plan. I congratulate the Minister on picking up the baton at such short notice, and I apologise to her, because the House will have noted that she was late for the start our debate, and had to rush into the Chamber. I plead guilty to detaining her, for which I apologise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister responds, I hope, with regard to the final remarks of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), that she will not stray too wide of the mark. The amendments before the House are narrowly drawn, so she may decide to respond to the hon. Gentleman at a later date.

Estelle Morris: It will not be the first time that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has led me astray, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I am grateful to the hon. Members for Bath and for Faversham and Mid-Kent for their favourable welcome for the amendment. I join them in congratulating our Paralympic athletes on their achievement, and I emphasise that the Paralympic games are very much part of the 2012 bid. Our strength in that area will help to make the bid attractive and, we hope, successful. I underline the importance of cross-party support for the bid, and appreciate the backing that our preparations have received from members of all parties.
	It is not for me to say whether lottery legislation will, or will not, be announced in the Queen's Speech. How much money will be raised by an Olympic lottery is very much a guesstimate. We do not know how many people will buy tickets or how much will be raised. We hope that the lottery will raise £750 million, but the hon. Member for Bath is right that it is unlikely to raise sufficient funds for other recipients to remain unaffected and I am not going to pretend otherwise. It would be wonderful if that were not the case, but that is not the likely outcome. However, although our figures are very much guesstimates, the "fair share" funding for recipients has worked well since the inception of the lottery. The hon. Gentleman must wait for the contents of any lottery legislation introduced after the Queen's Speech, but I am happy with the success of that funding scheme. He ought not to be afraid that any single recipient will bear undue losses in the effort to provide more money for the Olympic bid. We must wait, however, for any such legislation and, as Mr. Deputy Speaker said, to go further may be to stray from the subject of the amendments. However, the hon. Gentleman's question was half-legitimate, so I was happy to answer it.
	I hope that the amendment will find favour in the House. I thank hon. Members for their consideration of the Lords amendments, which was indicative of the Bill's passage through both Houses. I also thank them for their patience during my short, late and not very knowledgeable appearance.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.

School Sport

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stephen Twigg.]

Stephen Twigg: I am pleased to have the chance to set out the Government's strategy on school sport and physical education. Strong support exists on both sides of the House for the promotion of sport in schools and for increased participation and physical activity levels among children and young people. As a minimum, every child, whatever their circumstances, should spend at least two hours a week on high-quality physical education and school sport, both within and beyond the curriculum, and our national strategy is about turning that ambition into reality.
	By March 2006, we will have invested more than £1 billion in transforming sport in our schools. We will shortly confirm how much we will spend on school sport in 2006–07 and 2007–08 as a result of the 2004 spending review settlement, and I am confident that we will again make a significant investment further to improve physical education and school sport. Our public service agreement to increase the percentage of five to 16-year-olds who spend at least two hours a week on PE and school sport to 75 per cent. by 2006 and to 85 per cent. by 2008 is ambitious but achievable.
	It goes without saying that sport has a proven and essential role to play in many of our priority areas in education. Sport is worthwhile in and of itself, and it contributes to the central educational goal of raising standards. It is crucial to our cross-Government work to enhance the nation's health, not least by tackling childhood obesity, an issue to which I shall return later in my speech. It has an important role to play in improving attendance and behaviour in our schools, issues of which all hon. Members on both sides of the House are well aware, not least in our constituencies.
	Sport offers some children their first chance to succeed at school. Such success builds confidence and social skills and engages such children with education, which leads to less disruption for not only them but the school community as a whole, thereby enhancing other pupils' learning opportunities and impacting on academic attainment and standards. For example, one primary school that benefits from the sporting playgrounds programme found that after it zoned its playground, the number of antisocial incidents in the playground fell by about two thirds and the number of children involved in purposeful physical activity significantly increased.
	Let us not underestimate the importance and impact of doing well on the international sports stage. May I join hon. Members who participated in the previous debate in congratulating the teams at the Olympics and Paralympics on their performances in Athens and, of course, in wishing our bid for the 2012 games every success?

Simon Hughes: I should like to take the Minister back to the grassroots, where he began. I share his objectives, but I want to put two points to him. This lunchtime, I was at Ilderton primary school in my constituency. I asked the head how much swimming the children did, and she said that only one year goes swimming for two hours a week. Does the Minister agree that every child in every year should have the opportunity to go swimming, for all the obvious reasons?
	Will he consider the idea that part of the Government's plan for an 8 o'clock-to-6 o'clock package of provision for young people should be to provide sports and swimming alternatives between 3 o'clock—or the end of the formal school day—and 6 o'clock, which would allow every primary school child to take part in those activities every week if they wish to do so?

Stephen Twigg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. On his first point, I agree that the extended school day provides incredible opportunities to enhance learning, including in the field of physical education and sport, of which swimming is a part. However, I am not in a position to make the firm commitment that he seeks.
	On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), is pioneering, with Brent council and schools in the borough of Brent, a scheme precisely along the lines that the hon. Gentleman outlined. It aims to extend the school day and to provide opportunities for sport as part of that. Additionally, earlier this year we launched a swimming charter that set out some important requirements for school swimming. The Mayor of London funded certain boroughs in east London to ensure that they can offer swimming during the Easter holidays, and he is looking to build on that for future years.
	Good things are happening on the ground, and part of our job is to monitor them and to encourage other places to take up those opportunities. I certainly regard swimming as an important element of our physical education and sports strategy, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing that to the House's attention.
	The broad strategy on school sport is jointly led by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We seek to achieve several things. First, we want to build a national infrastructure that invests in people so that we have people who can really make a difference in physical education and sport. Evidence from Ofsted shows that the quality of PE teaching in primary, secondary and special schools has improved dramatically over recent years.
	Secondly, we want to do all that we can to make a step-change improvement to the facilities for school sports.
	Thirdly, we want to deliver opportunities for professional development to enhance expertise and subject knowledge.
	Fourthly, we want to strengthen links between schools and sports clubs to create a culture that supports participation in clubs and, importantly, offers young people leadership and volunteering opportunities that will improve their skills and employability.
	Fifthly, we want to ensure that there is better support for our most talented young athletes—the Olympians of the future—to help them to excel both in sport and in their wider education.
	Sixthly, we want to address an important issue that has been in the headlines for years by doing our best to protect school playing fields. I am very pleased that we recently reached an unprecedented partnership agreement with the National Playing Fields Association. In August, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills was able to announce the strongest ever protection for school playing fields. The new arrangements build on the legislation that was introduced in 1998, which has already stemmed the tide of uncontrolled sales by making it clear that the sale of a playing field must be the absolute last resort; that the proceeds need to be used to improve outdoor school sports facilities wherever practicable; and that the new facilities must be sustainable for at least 10 years.

William Cash: Does the Minister agree that there is a real distinction between PE and other sports and that it is essential to have people with sufficient skills and qualifications to teach cricket and rugger, as well as other sports such as football? Is that not reflected in the fact that pupils at Christ Church middle school in my constituency, who have just reached the national finals at Headingley—a tremendous achievement—received coaching from outside, not inside, the school, and that that problem should be addressed within the state system?

Stephen Twigg: First, I congratulate Christ Church middle school on its success in getting to Headingley. We want to do two things: strengthen the expertise of teachers in schools and tap into resources in the wider community. I do not think that that needs to be an either/or. In some communities, people will come from clubs and coaches will come from elsewhere to work in school gyms and classrooms and on the playing field. We need both.

John Mann: I seek clarification: are there any circumstances in which a school playing field could be sold off and the proceeds go to anything other than school sports facilities?

Stephen Twigg: The only slightly wider circumstance is the proceeds perhaps going to the broader facilities of a school. They could not be used for other purposes that go beyond sport and education.

John Mann: In other words, is the Minister saying that a local education authority could subsidise its capital programme for school buildings by selling off playing fields?

Stephen Twigg: That would be a very last resort. An LEA would have to clear a series of hurdles before it could even present an application. Such an application would then go before a panel including the National Playing Fields Association before it could even be considered by me. Ultimately, it would come to me for approval. I have not approved anything along those lines.

John Mann: I am delighted that the Minister has not accepted any such application so far. Is he aware of, and does he expect in the next three months, any application in respect of which he might consider doing anything other than allowing the proceeds of the sale of school playing fields to go into sports facilities only, rather than subsidising the capital programme of a big-spending LEA that receives a lot of rates?

Stephen Twigg: I suspect that my hon. Friend may be referring to a particular example, possibly in his constituency. I shall await any news that I might receive on that, either from him or from the applicant, rather than speculate on how I might respond to it.
	I shall now try to make progress, because a number of hon. Members want to speak and only two hours remain in the debate. We have conducted a large and comprehensive survey of school sport in England, which was published on 29 April. It shows some of the progress that is being made. For example, overall, 62 per cent. of pupils in the 6,500 schools surveyed spend at least two hours in a typical week on high-quality physical education and school sport. We believe from this that we are on course to achieve the 2006 and 2008 targets. I put on record my thanks to the teachers, coaches and volunteers who have done so much to make that possible.
	What we need to do now is consolidate what has been achieved, to press on and do more. For example, we need to increase participation among some of the youngest children in education and to encourage girls, pupils from ethnic minorities and those with special needs or disabilities to take up their entitlement to sport on an equal basis with everyone else.

Andy Burnham: While it is good that more and more schools are reaching the two-hour target, does the Minister agree that a message needs to be sent to schools that it is a bare minimum? It is not "job done" when that target is reached and schools should go on to provide many more hours of sport as well as a diverse range of sports to take part in. Achieving the two hours is the first box ticked.

Stephen Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is known for the hard work that he has done and is doing in this area, and he is absolutely right to remind me and the House that the two hours is a minimum. We shall certainly look kindly on schools that can reach a much larger figure. Clearly, with 62 per cent. of pupils achieving the two hours, we still face a big challenge in getting the other 38 per cent. to follow. That has to be our priority. I will certainly do all I can to encourage, support and recognise those schools that find themselves able to go beyond the two-hour minimum.
	Sport is a powerful medium to re-engage young people. It is now widely accepted that learning should not start and stop at the school gate or at the end of the school day, and that partnerships beyond the classroom are essential if we are to enable children to realise their potential.
	One programme that does that very well is Playing for Success. There are now 83 Playing for Success centres—state-of-the-art study support centres—at football and other professional sports clubs. We have set a target of at least 100 being open by 2006, and there is every sign that we will meet that target a year ahead of schedule.
	The centres support young people who may be struggling with literacy and numeracy, getting them back on course, strengthening their motivation to learn and improving their self-esteem and confidence. Every FA premier league club has a centre. Many clubs in the football league do too, but it is not just football clubs—rugby, cricket, basketball and tennis clubs are also involved.
	I recommend that hon. Members on both sides of the House visit a Playing for Success centre to see some of the marvellous work that is done to motivate young people. It is not something woolly about motivation—the centres are having a serious impact on standards. Independent evaluation by the National Foundation for Educational Research has found that the centres significantly improve pupils' skills and motivation and that they make significant progress in independent study skills and self-image, which help them when they return to their schools.
	Since 1997, specialist sports schools, the sports colleges, have been raising sporting and academic standards, establishing successful partnerships with the private sector and working with the wider community. We now have 291 schools that specialise in sport, including four of the academies, benefiting more than 250,000 pupils. We aim to reach 400 by 2006, which will represent one in nine of all secondary schools.

Bob Russell: Is there any evidence at this stage to show whether the academic achievements of schools that specialise in sport have remained the same, got worse or improved?

Stephen Twigg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for anticipating the next paragraph of my speech. Performance in PE at GCSE, A and AS-level is improving in sports colleges, as one might expect. More interestingly, there is a wider benefit—it is the case with all specialist schools. The curriculum focus is used to drive improvement across the school. The percentage of pupils in specialist sports schools achieving five or more A* to C grades at GCSE, the standard measure, increased from 41 per cent. in 1997 to 48.7 per cent. in 2003—almost double the national average increase for all schools. The hon. Gentleman highlights an important feature of the programme. It brings not only what we would expect—benefits with respect to PE and sport— but a broader benefit across the board.

Derek Wyatt: Is there not a problem if we insist that specialist sports schools have to achieve rigorous academic qualifications? Work carried out by social anthropologists at Stanford shows that people who cannot read and write need to do sport, art, music and acting first in order to get the confidence to return to maths and English. I wonder whether that is a core dilemma in the specialist sports school concept.

Stephen Twigg: I do not think that it is. We are certainly not saying that, in order to be a specialist school, it is necessary for that improvement to happen. The improvement is in large part a consequence of the curriculum focus that comes from specialism. On those figures, 51.3 per cent. of pupils did not achieve five or more A* to C grades at GCSE, but they enjoyed some of the other important benefits that my hon. Friend rightly describes.

William Cash: This is an interesting issue. I do not think that the Minister has mentioned the word "competition" yet. One cannot be good at games unless one is highly competitive. Surely that transfers across to an ethos within the school, which the Minister demonstrated from the figures, that some do better than others in school work as well as in sport. Does he agree that it is psychologically important to get across the idea that there is nothing but good to come from competition?

Stephen Twigg: Hon. Members are kindly anticipating different sections of my speech. I shall deal with competitive sport later—and, by way of reassurance, I shall be saying very much what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I intend to wrap up my remarks because several hon. Members wish to speak.
	School sport partnerships are clustered around the sports colleges, establishing a network of 400 such partnerships—families of schools—which receive additional funding to enhance sports opportunities for all children. We have reached a position where just over half of all schools in England are within this network of 313 partnerships. Last week, I had the opportunity to attend their national conference at Nottingham university, with about 1,000 people. There was a powerful sense of dynamism, energy and enthusiasm, sharing the benefits of specialism in secondary schools with other secondary schools and, importantly, primary schools, special schools and the broader community.
	More than 1,700 secondary co-ordinators and 10,000 primary and special school link teachers have been appointed and are in place within the partnerships, sharing best practice, organising competitions and activities, and building and strengthening subject leadership, particularly where it is seen to be most needed—in the primary sector. The prime objective of the partnerships is to enable pupils to take up their entitlement to the minimum of two hours of high-quality PE and sport.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has left the Chamber, but it is at this point that I should like to reiterate the Government's strong commitment to competitive school sport. The PE national curriculum requires that all pupils are taught competitive games. After years of decline, the co-ordinators and link teachers, with support from sports clubs and volunteers, are turning the tide to breathe life back into local, regional and national school sports competitions. For example, the Ellis Guildford partnership in Nottingham has just won a national development award for setting up six new competitive junior leagues in basketball, hockey, tennis, netball, cricket, rugby union and softball, involving 1,400 children from 36 schools. This is precisely the direction that we want to take, and competitive school sports are at the heart of our PE and school sport strategy.
	At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned that I wanted to place the sport strategy in the broader context of healthy living and the positive role that schools can play in promoting good health and, in particular, tackling obesity. We are working closely with colleagues in the Department of Health. Last month, we published the healthy living blueprint for schools, which re-emphasises not only the importance of PE and sport, but the broader benefits of physical activity, as well as focusing on issues such as food in schools. We want to build on that blueprint when the public health White Paper is published shortly.

Paul Truswell: The two sports colleges in my constituency are concerned at their inability to engage local NHS bodies, such as the primary care trusts, in their operations and in cascading out the local schools sport partnership. Would he be prepared to have words with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department to try and ensure that that particular gap is filled?

Stephen Twigg: I am happy to do that.

Bob Russell: Joined-up government.

Stephen Twigg: As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, the success of this relies on different parts of government, nationally and locally, working well. If my hon. Friend wants to write to me with more details on that specific instance, I shall be happy to look into it, but I want to send out a general message that for the healthy living approach to work, it requires schools to take it seriously, which itself is a challenge, and effective working together, locally and nationally. That is the way to make a success of this, and primary care trusts have an important role to play.
	Let me finish by saying something about the European year of education through sport. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stone is back in his place for this part. He sadly missed the part of my speech in which I think he and I would have been in full agreement, on the role of competitive sports, and I look forward to hearing him give his full endorsement today to the European year of education through sport. We would all agree that, to be world class, it is necessary to be aware of the wider world, and it is encouraging that the work that we are doing on sport is increasingly regarded by many of our international partners, including in the European Union, as a positive example from which lessons can be learned.

William Cash: I am sorry, but the Minister's remarks have tempted me to ask another question. He would, I am sure, repudiate the remarks of Romano Prodi, who suggested that we should be represented as Europeans at the Olympics. Could we just get that one completely out of the way?

Stephen Twigg: I am reliably informed by colleagues behind me that Mr. Prodi did not say that. However, I can certainly reiterate that we have absolutely no intention of doing anything of the sort and that we want to build on our nation's success at Athens. We hope to do that not only in Beijing, but in London in 2012.
	The European Union has designated 2004 the year of education through sport and we are playing an active role in that, helping to share best practice and to strengthen links with our friends in continental Europe. The prime objective of the year, very much mirroring and complementing the approach that I have been describing this afternoon, is to identify and showcase the contribution that sport is making and can make to education and to raising educational standards.
	The European Union has invested nearly £500,000 in 16 projects across the United Kingdom, including an international camp run by the Easington school sport partnership in Durham, where several hundred young people from across Europe took part in a camp focused on promoting healthy lifestyles. A project in Hull targeted young people at risk of under-performing and used sport as a medium to motivate and raise their expectations. Working with the British Council, we are developing a broader international perspective at the sports colleges and in the partnerships. For example, Angley school in Kent has developed links with a school in Bangkok, and through the dreams and teams programme, pupils at the schools have gained a greater awareness of each other's cultures and languages. The British Council is extending that programme to 21 countries, using the Department for Education and Skills' global gateway to help foster and sustain international school links—a positive example of sport as a medium not just for education but for promoting international ties and breaking down barriers between different nations and cultures.
	A great deal is already happening to promote school sport and increase participation. I pay tribute to school sport co-ordinators, link teachers, coaches, volunteers and others who are working hard to see this strategy through. We are on track to meet our targets, but I absolutely accept points made in interventions that many of those targets are minimums; we want to go beyond them. I believe that we can go beyond them and, in doing so, that we are on track to transform physical education and sport and place it at the heart of what schools do. By increasing participation in school sport, we shall enhance children's health, raise educational standards and better prepare young people for adult life, laying sound foundations to encourage their lifelong participation in sport. That is a set of objectives that Members in all parts of the House can support.

Hugh Robertson: May I say what an enormous pleasure it is that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair? You are well known as a school sportsman of some distinction, as was your son, I believe, so it is a particular pleasure that you are in the Chair today.
	It is also an enormous personal pleasure for me to speak in this debate on school sport not only because it is such an important and worthwhile subject but because I know that I gained an enormous amount personally from playing sport at school. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that my experience of playing sport at school shaped much of the rest of my life.
	During my two years in the Whips Office before taking on this job, I attended, I am sad to say, a considerable number of debates on Thursdays on a one-line Whip. Despite the unappealing timetable, they were often excellent debates, precisely because the hon. Members who contributed cared deeply about the subject and often had personal expertise to bring to bear. I have no doubt that this debate will be no exception and that we will hear a number of interesting and thought-provoking contributions.
	My only regret is that my opposite number, the Minister for Sport and Tourism, is not here to listen to those excellent speeches. Of course, it is an enormous pleasure that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) is here, but a visible sign of commitment from my opposite number would have been welcome. [Hon. Members: "Where are the Tories?"] Quite a few of my hon. Friends are here.
	I should like to remind the House of exactly why sport is so important to young people, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree about that. Sport is good for young people because it gets them fit, which is good for their health. It teaches them about the benefits of exercise, so they are more likely to maintain a healthy lifestyle throughout their adult years—something that the Minister touched on. It teaches them about leadership, commitment, teamwork, success, and of course, occasionally, failure. It keeps them occupied and channels their energies towards worthwhile and rewarding activities. It may well provide future career opportunities and, probably most importantly, it is fun.
	Before I address the main issues that affect sport in school, it is important to emphasise that not all young people play all their sport at school. Sadly, some traditional school sports have virtually died out in some state schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said; cricket and rugby are two excellent examples, as anyone who reads the trade press on those sports will know. There are also several sports where the necessary coaching expertise can be found only in clubs. For example, I was struck by a recent article in the Sunday papers about Kelly Holmes, because it was immediately obvious that the majority of her early athletics training had come, quite properly, from her local athletics club. It is vital, therefore, that the House recognise the crucial role that clubs play in encouraging young people to play sport and that the link between clubs and schools should be strengthened. I hope that the Minister will address that in his closing remarks.
	There is a consensus that sport is good for young people and needs to be encouraged and promoted, and the Government certainly recognise that, as I would be the first to admit. Their 2001 manifesto stated:
	"We pledge a sport entitlement for all children, giving them access to at least two hours a week of sport in or after school."
	The Department for Culture, Media and Sport was given a new public service agreement target in the spending review—shared with the Minister's Department—to increase the proportion of schoolchildren who spend a minimum of two hours a week on high-quality PE and school sport to 85 per cent. by 2008, and to ensure that at least 75 per cent. of schoolchildren are in a school sport partnership by the same year.
	On 4 March this year, DCMS published to statistics on the take-up of PE in schools that have been part of the school sports partnership for three years. The results come from a sample of 1,807 schools that were surveyed, of which 74 per cent. replied. I thought that that survey found that 68 per cent.—the Minister said 62 per cent.— of pupils in schools that have been in such a partnership for three years are spending at least two hours each week on high-quality PE and school sport. Let us all admit that that is greatly to be welcomed. However, even after three years of being in a schools partnership, it sounds as though 38 per cent.—I thought that the figure was 32 per cent.—of pupils are not doing so.

Stephen Twigg: We are both right. The hon. Gentleman quotes a figure that relates to those schools that have been in the partnership for the full three years. The 62 per cent. figure includes schools that have come into the partnership in the second and third year of the programme.

Hugh Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for clearing that up, not least because his figures suit my argument better than mine do. That means that 38 per cent. of pupils—one in three—are not spending two hours a week on sport, and I am sure that we would all agree that that is far too many.
	Furthermore, 26 per cent. of schools did not reply to the survey, so it is probably safe to assume that they are not meeting the target. A number of schools have not been part of the school sport partnership for three years, so are not eligible to be included in the figures in the first place. If we break those figures down, we see that that leaves 68 per cent.—or perhaps 62 per cent.—of the 74 per cent. that replied, as opposed to a target of 75 per cent. by 2008. We would all agree that there is much left to do.
	Several hon. Members have already asked why a mere two hours a week should be the holy grail. I am always nervous, particularly in the company of one or two of my hon. Friends who are here today, of drawing lessons from Europe, but France, for example, specifies three hours. That is an example from the continent to which we could safely aspire—and if we are to do so, funding is the key.
	The national lottery, which will soon celebrate its 10th birthday, and of which my party can rightly be proud, is a welcome source of funding for sport. Many Members on both sides of the House will have facilities in their constituencies that have been improved since 1994 with the help of lottery funding. Four years ago, in his keynote speech to the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister said:
	"Today we set out plans to invest £750 million of lottery money in schools and community sport as part of a £1 billion investment over three years".
	However, last January, more than three years after that speech, we discovered that only £8.5 million of that £750 million had been spent. There cannot be one MP in the House who regards that as satisfactory.

Andy Burnham: I was at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when that policy was developed, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my constituency, which previously had no floodlit Astroturf pitches, now has two, at Bedford high school and Westleigh high school, and there are two more to come under that policy. It takes time to put such facilities in place, but they are now coming through, and they are very welcome.

Hugh Robertson: I am delighted to hear it, but by the same token, the hon. Gentleman will admit that £8.5 million out of £750 million—

Andy Burnham: More than that.

Hugh Robertson: That was the figure to which a DCMS Minister admitted one Question Time, when we had an exchange on the subject, so clearly he could not produce better figures. Perhaps we could clear the matter up by asking the Minister to confirm how much of that lottery money has been spent, and what plans his Department has to improve the situation.
	I want to mention three further factors, the first of which is school playing fields, which the Minister has already touched on. I have no wish to enter into what could only be described as a sterile party political debate on school playing fields. I am well aware that Labour Members will criticise the Conservative Government for starting the sales—although I have never seen any great statistical evidence to back that accusation up. We will inevitably respond by pointing out that the Government have been in power for seven years, and have had ample time to honour their commitments. However, I am sure that we would all agree that the record is, at best, mixed.
	On 4 March the DCMS published statistics on the applications for developments on playing fields relating to applications made between April 2002 and March 2003. There were 1,297 applications relating to playing fields, and 807—62 per cent.—were approved. The remainder were either rejected or are yet to be decided. Of the 807 approved applications, in only 212—26 per cent.—did the redevelopment provide new or improved sporting facilities. Nineteen per cent. of the applications related to changing rooms, access or floodlights—although I would be the first to agree that floodlights allow people to play sport for longer. Thirteen per cent. of the applications were simply like-for-like replacements. Those figures, as the Minister has been big enough to admit, give cause for concern. The fact that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills felt compelled to announce last August that new regulations are to be introduced is a sure sign that things are not going well. That announcement is welcome and I pay tribute to him for making it. However, we must wait and see its effect before we pass judgment.

John Mann: The hon. Gentleman's comments have been commendably precise and I am sure that he will want to give a commendably precise answer to my intervention. What advice would he give the leader of Bassetlaw council, whom I am meeting on Monday? In the past few weeks, he has received £2 million from the sell-off of playing fields that schools use. Should all that money be spent on sporting facilities, or should it go into subsidising the general council budget?

Hugh Robertson: The hon. Gentleman tempts me. Since he has listened to the introduction to my speech, I suspect that he knows where my sympathies lie. However, given that I know nothing about Bassetlaw, the council budget or the facts behind the case, it would be unfair to get off the fence.
	In his winding-up speech, will the Under-Secretary confirm the Government's intention about the sale of school playing fields, and especially deal with the concerns of several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who believe that the new regulations will not protect smaller school playing fields? The hon. Lady has appeared in the press about the matter a lot recently.
	My second point is the time available to teachers to coach or supervise sport. Once a school has a playing field, the next obvious requirement is for a teacher with the time and expertise to coach the pupils. There is no doubt that many teachers throughout the country give up a great deal of time to coach school sport. All of us would wish to pay tribute to them. However, many people—I have met them in my constituency on several occasions—feel so weighed down by the burden of bureaucracy that they are unable to free up more of their time to coach school sport. In a recent poll, 92 per cent. of teachers believed that the amount of red tape that they faced reduced the time available for preparing lessons. If that applies to academic work, it is easy to appreciate its detrimental effect on school sport. The Under-Secretary has expertise in the subject and I hope that he can tell hon. Members about his proposals for reducing teacher bureaucracy to free up more time for teachers to coach school sport.

William Cash: Let me take my hon. Friend a little further. Should not the people who are prepared to acquire the necessary skills to teach cricket, rugger and tennis be paid a bonus? One cannot expect people to act entirely out of love; they need an additional incentive. Does my hon. Friend agree with that as a matter of principle?

Hugh Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that the time when people did such things purely out of public spirit has passed. We need concrete proposals and firm incentives.

Paul Truswell: We are listening to the hon. Gentleman's pious comments, but did not the Government that his party formed create the backlash from teachers in the dispute about teacher contracts? Did not choking off revenue and capital and alienating teachers help to dig the grave for school sports? The Government are trying to get us out of that predicament.

Hugh Robertson: I said a moment ago that I believed that there was little point in a sterile party political debate because the obvious answer to the intervention is that the Labour Government have been in power for seven years—nearly two terms. Ten and 11-year-olds who currently play school sport will have never known this country governed by anything other than a Labour Government. The Government have had ample time to put the matter right.
	My third point is about the compensation culture. A plethora of rules and regulations governs almost every aspect of every game. It is regrettable that parents are all too quick to sue if something goes wrong. I shall give two recent examples. First, the regulations that came into effect on 1 May this year that prevent an adult from taking more than two children into public swimming baths—

Andy Reed: rose—

Hugh Robertson: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would want to intervene at that point.

Andy Reed: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Only today, I received a letter on this matter from the Institute of Sport and Recreation Management, which is based in my constituency. I have raised the issue with my local authority, as I have two young children, and we are often unable to take them to the local swimming pool. I have received reassurances that the guidelines are very old, and that there is flexibility within them. I have arranged a meeting with the institute to see whether it can reissue the guidelines to remove this ridiculous anomaly, which makes it very difficult for families to take young children swimming if only one parent is available.

Hugh Robertson: The hon. Gentleman and I discussed this issue in the Lobby some weeks ago, and I am delighted to hear what he says. He will also be aware that we raised it at Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions three weeks ago, and that I have written to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills about it. The Minister was extremely helpful and promised that he would take the matter up, which I imagine will help us to get a response.
	A further example of a ridiculous situation involved a cricket match between two teams of 12-year-olds that took place this summer. Every 12-year-old who plays cricket nowadays has to wrap himself up in a helmet, despite the fact that hardly any 12-year-olds have the physical strength to bounce a ball head-high in a game of cricket. As a result, six of the players on one side were run out when the player at the far end could not hear the call because he was wearing a helmet. I cannot believe that that is in any way defensible.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) recently introduced a private Member's Bill offering protection to teachers who take children away for adventure training. That idea has now been adopted by my party in the form of a teacher protection Bill that would give teachers protection from prosecution unless there was an unambiguous case of clear negligence. I hope that the Government will look at that issue.
	I would like to pay tribute once again to all those who do so much to encourage sport in schools. It would, however, be wrong to conclude that everything in the garden is rosy. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the five points that I have raised. First, will the Government introduce proposals to strengthen and encourage the key link between clubs and schools? Secondly, will the remaining £741.5 million—or whatever the figure is—of lottery money allocated for school sport be rapidly distributed? It really is a sad state of affairs that only £8.5 million has been distributed thus far. Thirdly, will the Minister address the question of school playing fields, and particularly the concerns of the hon. Member for Vauxhall? Fourthly, will he outline the concrete steps that the Government are going to take to cut teacher bureaucracy and free up more teacher time for sport? Fifthly, will he address the question of legal protection?
	School sport is almost universally a good thing. We would all agree on that. It is vital for us, as politicians—whichever side of the House we are on—to create the conditions in which it can flourish.

Paul Truswell: It has already been noted that this is a crucial debate, and I do not intend to reiterate why sport is a good thing. The fact that it is carries the consensus of the whole House. It worries me, however, that levels of physical activity in Yorkshire and the Humber are, at 30.4 per cent., lower than the national average, and that only 28.3 per cent. of our region's adults take enough physical activity to benefit their health.
	The other crucial statistic that concerns me is the investment per person in sport. In this country, it is £21; in Germany, it is £30; in Australia, it is £51; in Canada, it is £76; and in France, £112. We have a long way to go. I do not want to engage in a party-political knockabout on this issue, but we have heard nothing from the Opposition about what exactly they would do in terms of investing in sport. The Government's PE, school sport and club links programme, and the accompanying £454 million, represent a brilliant start to addressing this challenge. What is most daunting, however, is the fact that so many different strands have to come together to haul school sport out of the doldrums into which it has fallen over many years.
	Two specialist sports colleges serve all the schools in my constituency: St. Mary's comprehensive school, Menston, and Priesthorpe high school in Pudsey. They are highly valued for the way in which they are cascading their expertise and support to more than 70 primary schools and 10 high schools. They deserve credit, but this Government also deserve credit for having set them up.
	There are many positives to report and I shall sprint through some of the headlines from the monitoring report:
	"Much improved quality of teaching and learning in PE, which are reflected in PE department results . . . huge expansion of activities provided for students out of school hours . . . large increases in uptake of exam courses, leadership courses, and post 16 sport related qualifications . . . massive improvement in partnership working between schools—both primary and secondary—and a willingness to share expertise . . . and greater and more positive links with local sports clubs—improved training for volunteers has led to better quality of provision within the clubs for young people."
	Unfortunately, as with everything in life, there are also negatives. These include poor facilities, especially outdoors, and lack of access to other facilities. As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) said, we need to ensure that the resources that are available are effectively targeted in support of specialist colleges and school sport partnerships.
	It is significant that very few of the high schools in my constituency—I am sure that it is also true of many others—have decent cricket pitches. The best school facilities, not to mention coaching, are invariably found in the private sector. It cannot be a coincidence that private schools are disproportionately visible at representative level in sports such as cricket.

Hugh Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A perfect illustration of that came a month or so ago when I turned out for the Lords and Commons cricket side against a Hackney community college side, a smashing institution that was set up to try to encourage young people to play sport and obtain a formal qualification. The problem is that there is not a single local authority cricket pitch on which they can play in the London borough of Hackney.

Paul Truswell: Given the time available, I should not allow myself to be diverted on to that issue, but the historical problem was the choking off of resources, especially capital resources, in the 1980s and the early 1990s. That made it very difficult for schools to maintain cricket pitches. The school that I attended—it feels like it was 101 years ago—no longer has a cricket pitch. It has been subsumed into the general parkland across the road from the school. Therefore, to some extent, there is a party political response to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
	I mentioned links with local health bodies to my hon. Friend the Minister, and I am pleased that he has agreed to take them up. Other problems include transport, especially for people with disabilities. The sports colleges in my area are trying to get people with disabilities more involved in their activities.
	At least one of the colleges is experiencing a shortage of PE staff to cover all the posts that need filling because of the introduction of the liberating concept of sports colleges. I hope that we are moving away from the old Woody Allen observation, based on the wisdom of George Bernard Shaw, that "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't teach, teach gym." Perhaps the specialist colleges and sports partnerships are already sowing the seeds necessary to address that problem, with all the young people who are taking GCSEs, A-levels and other sport leadership initiatives.
	The Central Council of Physical Recreation has campaigned vigorously to secure two hours of quality PE time in the curriculum. Specialist colleges are beginning to deliver that provision, but teachers can provide safe, high quality PE only if they are appropriately trained. I would welcome the view of my hon. Friend the Minister on the CCPR recommendation that a minimum of 30 hours should be devoted to PE in the initial teacher training for primary school teachers.
	The National Council for School Sport recognises the need for school sport and national governing bodies to align their approaches, which in my experience does not always happen. We need coaches to go into schools, but we also need to accept that teachers are in schools, day in and day out, and they are crucial to the development of sport in their schools.
	The NCSS stressed the need to support and acknowledge the volunteers who run major national sports events. I give just one example: the London Schools Cricket Association, which organises four or five week-long cricket festivals for county teams, including girls, at Ampleforth college in North Yorkshire. I was fortunate enough to be able to attend two of those weeks during the summer. The fact that London should go to Yorkshire to stage such an event is refreshing.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent that there is a definite role for coaches in schools where the school does not have the necessary expertise. I know from the experience of my sons and their peers, who are keen and accomplished cricketers, what coaches can do in enthusing and in developing skills and thus enjoyment. They can point players towards clubs and engage parents.
	My great sporting love is cricket—that great male bastion. Indeed, it is so much of a bastion that even many males find it difficult to break in, so it was uplifting when visiting a local primary school to find a cricket coach in attendance and even better to find that the coach was a woman. In later months, I was delighted when she raised an all-girl under-13 team that acquitted itself well in the Airedale and Wharfedale league, beating several all-male teams. Women in cricket and so many other sports are not there simply to make the tea, drive the transport or wash the kit; they have a valid role to play, which that team demonstrates locally.
	An important point, made forcefully by the Women's Sport Foundation, is that there is consistent evidence that the conventional school sports system too often fails girls. We know from figures produced by Sport England two years ago that girls as young as seven begin to show negative attitudes to sport. From research undertaken by the Youth Sport Trust, we learn that 40 per cent. of young women have dropped out of physical activity by the age of 18. Research published by the University of Bath last week stated that 79 per cent. of girls want to be fitter, compared with 68 per cent. of boys, and that 49 per cent. of girls do not feel comfortable exercising in front of other people.
	That is why I support the foundation in its request for key measurements, with an evaluation of PESSCL programmes to be broken down on a gender basis and I would welcome the Minister's view on that. The future targets for PESSCL also remain generic. There is no specific reference to the need for girls to be given the chance to catch up with boys in sport.
	I also welcome the Government's gifted and talented programme. I accept that a line must be drawn between targeting talent and ensuring that resources are targeted on promoting involvement and activity for all. Indeed, those who will never aspire to the greatest heights are probably more important to sport than the stars. They are the club players, the volunteer organisers, the coaches, the parents and the fans of tomorrow, without whom sport will die.
	I have an interest to declare. My 12-year-old youngest son returned from Denmark on Monday after representing England at badminton. He also plays cricket for Yorkshire schools and has been chosen for the north of England squad. Incidentally, he has been wearing a helmet since the age of 6.

Andy Burnham: Has he been run out?

Paul Truswell: Many times, but youngsters are run out not because they wear helmets but because they cannot gauge a run. That is well known in cricket circles. That is why I think the example given earlier was farcical.
	For the present, my son is obviously gifted and talented, although such things are often transient in young people. Even with hindsight, how he progressed from where he was four years ago, when he was simply whacking a shuttlecock as hard as he could at his decrepit old dad, to becoming an England player is almost impossible to explain. There was certainly no clear route. We learned as we went along and made many mistakes. I hope that such routes will be better signposted under the Government strategy to which my hon. Friend the Minister alluded.
	Truswell minor is an expensive and exhausting individual to run, although my hard-pressed wife, on whose shoulders most of the burdens fall, and I are not personally looking for any support—financial or otherwise. But what happens to all those young people who do not have parents who are supportive in general or are specific sport enthusiasts, or who do not have the resources to fund their children's sport?
	There must be a worry about the possible clash between school and sport—not sport in school. Michael Truswell might be an outstanding sportsman at the moment, but he is no academic leviathan. Such a situation must be a worry to many parents of gifted and talented children. I know of schools in my constituency that have gone the extra mile to support talented youngsters. One school has a young woman whose international prowess demands that she train far from home during the week. It has provided her with a customised GCSE timetable, with a senior teacher acting as her mentor, so that her schoolwork does not suffer. Youngsters at other schools must take a day off a week for football or half a day for tennis and they are receiving similar support. I suspect that such good practice is the exception rather than norm, but I hope that it will become the norm as the Government roll out their gifted and talented strategy.
	I shall cite an example of the benefits of not taking too idealistic a view of school playing fields. Crawshaw high school in my constituency spent years trying to persuade the local authority to sell a small section of its playing fields that was virtually unusable because of its slope. It succeeded at long last and used the money raised to install drainage to waterlogged rugby pitches, to pay for a floodlit all-weather pitch and to help to fund its new Sir Leonard Hutton sports centre, which has been named after one of Pudsey's greatest sons who attended school on that site 80 years ago. There are advantages to taking the constructive approach on school playing fields that the Minister suggested.
	I realise that I have already taken up far too much of the House's time by scratching the surface of some of the challenges that we face, but I know that the Government are making a real and genuine effort to address them to a greater extent than their predecessors.

Bob Russell: I realise that the clock is against us. The allocation of little more than two hours to debate such an important subject indicates that those who set the rules of the House do not regard the matter as highly as those of us who are in the Chamber. I suggest that the Minister discuss with his colleagues whether we should have more time for such a debate. Although there are differences among us on emphasis and issues around the edges, there is clearly more that unites us. I urge him to continue with the consensual approach that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) also adopted.
	School sport is a great idea, but not everyone agrees with that. Hon. Members in the Chamber agree with the Minister that sport should be at the heart of what schools do, but I suspect that the mandarins at the Department for Education and Skills and those at Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street do not share that view, because I have seen no evidence that sport is at the heart of what schools do. I was grateful to the Minister for his response to my intervention, because the evidence shows that schools that promote sport, physical exercise and health have better academic achievements than those that do not promote a healthy lifestyle. One of the problems of recent years has been an emphasis on academic achievement and school league tables to such an extent that head teachers and the educational establishment in general has felt that sport and music must be excluded or pushed to the sidelines so that schools can concentrate on academic subjects. However, a sporting environment promotes both greater academic achievement and young people's enjoyment. I sometimes get the impression that young people are not supposed to enjoy life, so we must get away from that.
	Not all people want to engage in competitive sports, so we must cast the net more widely and loosely. "Sport for all" was a great slogan, but it might have discouraged those who did not think that they were good at sport and thus considered that it was not for them. Our aim should be participation regardless of ability. I would hope that that would create a broad-based pyramid that would lead to different degrees of attainment ranging from beginners and those who simply want to engage in sport for fun through to elite performers.
	Obesity could be good news for sport. Thanks to the Health Committee's report on obesity, the ticking time bomb of a looming health crisis provides sport with a chance to get its rightful place on the political agenda. Schools must use the report as a means to do that, and the Department for Education and Skills must take the lead. Hitherto, successive Governments have seemingly only shown an interest in sport to bask in the glory of an international sporting triumph.
	Sport is a neglected activity and has been for years, locally and nationally. Sport provision has been the Cinderella and one of the first things to face cuts. The educational establishment has failed sport. Different figures have been given, but however we look at it, a large number of the nation's children do not get the minimum two hours' physical recreation a week that they should. I am concerned that the Minister repeated the Government line that the two hours should be within and beyond the curriculum. For many parts of the country, anything beyond the normal school day is not an option. School buses do not hang around. Public transport does not exist. Safe cycle routes do not apply. So the two hours must be the minimum within the school curriculum. Anything beyond that is a bonus, but unless we get those two hours in the curriculum, everything else we talk about cannot come to pass for a vast number of children.
	I recognise that many other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. The subject is not party political in the broadest sense. I finish by urging the Minister to go back to his business managers to get longer and more frequent debates. If sport is at the heart of what schools do, we must prove it. The only way to do that is to have more discussions, more debates and more conclusions. The Government must get going on all the good things that they say they want to do, so that after seven years we see more fruit than we have hitherto.

Doug Henderson: I agree that the subject is not party political. It is about lifestyle and is beyond politics. I have always taken part in competitive sport and still do. I love competitive sport, but my comments do not relate entirely to it; they relate also to non-competitive sport. I could talk about competitive sport all day and there are excellent examples in my constituency of local sports clubs playing an important role. Such clubs are essential if there is to be a link between the community and the schools.
	Role models are important. It is crucial in my constituency that Newcastle United has provided community teaching and sports facilities on a wide scale since 1997. In fact, my son is a beneficiary of that. Newcastle Falcons rugby club does the same thing. It has extended contact to 30,000 young people in recent years, which is an excellent example. My local amateur cricket club—Benwell cricket club—has an excellent winter coaching scheme with youngsters in Walbottle school. I am sure that colleagues have similar examples. Such initiatives are important. I support them and want to see more of them, but although I want people to benefit from competitive sport, not everyone is prepared to take part in it.
	I do not know whether hon. Members remember the film "Kes". Perhaps I am one of the few old enough to do so. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will certainly remember it. I always recall the scene in which the gym teacher is playing football with the two sets of kids. He thinks he is Bobby Charlton and scores a goal. "Charlton 1" flashes up on the film. Meanwhile, the little boy—he is fascinated by falcons but has been forced to play competitive sport—is swinging from the goalpost without any interest at all in the proceedings. That sums up many people's reaction to competitive sport. I very much support the need to achieve our fitness goals. I do not believe in preaching, but I am annoyed when I see youngsters in my constituency with a sedentary lifestyle. They eat the wrong food and hang about with nothing to do for much of the time. Some of them probably smoke cigarettes and others probably get involved in worse things. After all the development and growth that we have experienced in this country, I am annoyed that we still have those problems. "Everyday Sport" is a campaign set up by Sport England in co-operation with the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Skills with the aim of trying to improve the fitness of the whole community in different ways. If it is to meet its targets it must reach young people—if we do not get people to do sport when they are young we will not get them to do it when they are older. Some individuals may change their ways when they are older, but it is better to get people to adopt a healthy lifestyle in their teens, as at least some of them will maintain it.
	It is crucial that such a programme be linked to school activity. The Department of Health wants to introduce "Everyday Sport" activities, the school system thinks that they are a good thing and the local authority thinks they are wonderful for the area, but finding someone to organise them is a big problem. The Government are doing excellent work, but there is more to do, as I am sure the Minister recognises. Although the campaign is backed by the Department of Health, I urge him to accept that implementing it for young people should be the responsibility of his Department. The only facilities in most communities, apart from some community centres, are in schools, and, as has been said for a long time, we must use them outside school hours. Someone, however, must take charge of the programme, which is not cheap, even though the nation would save on health spending by investing in it. If 75 young people take part in sport between 4 and 6 pm a professional coach will be needed, although a teacher may be prepared to help out, along with four or five other people, who will be needed to police activities.
	Teachers' duties were different when I was at school, when the geography teacher took me for cricket and the maths teacher took me for football. That does not happen in state schools to such an extent today, and someone needs to be responsible for the fitness regime after school, in the holidays and so on. The Government have proposed paying someone for two hours extra a week so that they can contribute to the scheme, but I think that that is inadequate. We should go right to the top—a deputy head teacher should be charged with the responsibility of administering the scheme, working with the local offices of the Department of Health, the council, the principal gym teacher in the school and others to try and co-ordinate activities. We are not necessarily looking for someone with a background in sport, although we need someone who is sympathetic to the aims of the scheme. It is an administrator's job. I do not usually like to call for administrators, but in this case we need one, and the job requires someone with the status of a deputy head teacher. Their contract should not be a traditional one, but should reflect the need to cover holidays and after-school activities. I could say much more about this subject, about which I am passionate, but many colleagues wish to take part in our debate, so I thank the House for listening and hope that the Minister is prepared at least to look at that suggestion.

Angela Watkinson: I begin by apologising to the Minister for unintentionally missing the beginning of his speech. Despite that, I hope that he will join me in congratulating two schools in my constituency. Coopers' Company and Coborn school achieved specialist sports college status about two years ago and Emerson Park school achieved it more recently—the London borough of Havering has a good reputation for school sport.
	I worked in a special school for many years, where one of my responsibilities was running a riding for the disabled group. Some of the children were heavily disabled wheelchair users and others had invisible disabilities such as diabetes and epilepsy, but they all participated in the riding for the disabled group. The freedom that comes from being mounted on and controlling a horse is unimaginable for children who are unable to walk in other circumstances. That non-competitive sporting activity was extremely worthwhile.
	I also took the children swimming. Once children who are unable to walk are in the water, they experience freedom and can exercise in a way that would otherwise be impossible. Once a year, I used to organise an inter-special schools swimming gala for about eight London boroughs. The gala was competitive, and I used to announce the children's names and the lane in which they were swimming. After each race, the children would come up to the table and ask, "Which school won? What was my time? How did we do? How many points has my school achieved?"
	After many years, somebody decided that competitive sport was not good for those children, and a non-competitive annual gala was introduced. The first year was such an anti-climax: I announced the children's names and their lanes, and they gave their all to get from one end of the pool to the other—children who cannot walk swim surprisingly quickly because their upper-body strength is high—but it was pointless to reach the other end first. The children came to the table and asked, "Who won? Did I win? How many points does my school have?" The event fell flat, and the children did not get half as much enjoyment from the non-competitive gala as they did from the competitive gala. The gala continued to be held in a non-competitive spirit for a time, but interest waned.
	Sport is not only a question of getting fit or being part of a team. One of the most important lessons in life is learning to win and lose with good grace, and school sport is the most important vehicle for teaching children that essential life skill.

John Mann: If there were time, I would talk at some length, which I will not do, about competitive sports. Suffice it to say, last week a highly competitive riding and angling competition occurred between a Labour Member and a Conservative Member. The House will be delighted to know that the Labour Member won the angling competition by a significant amount, and the Conservative Member, who will remain nameless and who called for a steward's inquiry after an unexpected swerve to the left by my horse, had to concede defeat in the racing too.
	I want to raise the issue of facilities, including school playing fields. These days, one cannot play competitive sport in the streets and back alleys, which we all did, because the speed of motor cars and constituents' expectations precludes such activities. The Government rightly say that they will not sell off playing fields, and a recent press release states:
	"the sale of a playing field is an absolute last resort with local authorities having to demonstrate that they have exhausted all other sources of funding for the required school sports facilities".
	Nottinghamshire, which is one of the largest local authorities in the country, recently received £126 million-worth of DFES private finance initiative credits to rebuild secondary schools in the county, specifically in and around my constituency. That is the largest investment in secondary schools in any one district or constituency, and I fought tooth and nail for it. I would trust that the same Government and the same Department would not look kindly on an amalgam of local authorities that subsequently announced that it has a funding gap in building the new schools, because if that were the case they would presumably have put in a different PFI bid. Even more strangely, the funding gap emerged despite the fact that on the site in contention two schools have merged into one, so the amount of capital required is less than it would have been.
	As a big supporter of the PFI schools programme, I think that the bid was well constructed but highlights several anomalies. In a speech on 27 August, the Secretary of State talked about land surplus to the needs of other local schools and the community. Who defines the "other local schools" that might use playing field facilities? More interestingly, who defines "the community"? Who is to determine the community demand for sports fields? Will it be the local authority that wishes to sell off the school fields? I invite the Minister to meet "the community" before taking a decision that will be referred to him because of objections made by me, by the vast majority of local people and by Sport England to the selling off of playing fields at Portland school in order to fill a funding gap that has arisen not at that school but somewhere else in the local authority's budget.
	Before my hon. Friend makes that decision, I invite him to meet the Manton Spitfires boys' and girls' football teams, to whom I will present new kit at 11 o'clock on Saturday morning. Unfortunately, the many new community youth football teams organised by volunteers from the Manton Spitfires do not have fields on which to play. He could then go and meet the Blyth Bombers, a long-established set of youth teams who have just lost their field for playing community football, and the Worksop Town football club juniors, who comprise nine different teams that are soon to be expanded to 18. Again, they do not have fields on which to play football. I suspect that local authority submissions suggesting that they need to sell off said playing fields do not take any account of that demand, because the community view has somehow been lost.
	Adjoining those playing fields are three primary schools: Holy Family, a Catholic school that would like to use the facilities; the Priory Church of England school, which has never had grass fields in its history; and Ryton Park, the school that produced Danny Thomas, an England footballer, despite the fact that it is a purely Tarmac-based old redbrick school without a sports field. Are their views to be taken into consideration, given that they are not contained in any LEA documents?
	There is a further anomaly. Rather unfairly, I questioned the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) about the situation at yet another school with a PFI bid, where playing fields have been sold off for £2 million. In this case, the decision does not go to the Minister. The fields belong to the district council, not the local education authority, so it is allowed to sell them off although they have been there for as long as houses have been there. Will it spend the £2 million on sports facilities? Well, it gave no indication of that, although a small amount will be spent on them. I understand that it proposes to contribute to the establishment of a private gym opposite the fields that are to go for ever and be replaced by buildings, but why is there this anomaly whereby a local authority but non-LEA school sports field can be sold off? How can it get away with that?
	I shall wind up my speech after making a final point, rather than taking up any more of the House's time. We look for leadership. Last night, I was with a constituent of the Minister's and we discussed leadership among those on the Government Front Bench. We agreed that the Minister is a particularly strong and bold leader, and I shall be looking for such leadership in his decisions.
	In considering the application I have described or any other comparable application, will the Minister simply accept the science thrown at him by a £500 million-worth LEA—which can put forward every fact and figure it can construe without bothering to consult any primary schools or community sports organisations and without raising the issue of current use—that wants to sell off playing fields, pocket the money and put it in its budget?
	If an LEA needs money for buildings, it should provide it by having the guts to go to the people to demand more out of taxation or by going to the Government to demand more. It should not, through nefarious means, try to sideline playing fields that are desperately needed by schoolchildren and the community. In Nottinghamshire in particular, I hope that the Minister will address joint use between district and county council—the ruse that has been used repeatedly to sell off playing fields by giving promises that one side will do this and the other will do that.
	In this specific example, neither side will fund new facilities such as replacement swimming pools, so we lose a swimming pool. Neither will fund replacement athletics tracks, so we lose an athletics track. We lose not only the playing fields, but other sporting facilities, all in the name of progress. I hope the Minister considers this application very closely when it is put before him and backs Government policy of putting playing fields and schoolchildren first.

William Cash: Other Members want to speak so I shall be brief and move rapidly to the point. I believe that sport is a fundamental ingredient of education. Recently, however, successive generations in both political parties have failed to recognise that, so I very much welcome the debate.
	The question is, does the sportsman or the person who can excel in sports acquire his sense of achievement and his sense of competition, which is essential to most sports, from his character or from the sport? I think the two interact. It is apparent that people such as Don Bradman or some of the great West Indian cricketers lived in extremely deprived circumstances but became brilliant merely because they wanted to excel. They did that without any facilities or resources to speak of, yet I could not for a moment imagine that it is not essential to try to provide the best-quality sporting facilities in schools if it is possible to do so.
	A point has been made about private schools. On the whole, they have extremely good facilities. It is utterly disgraceful that state schools have found themselves selling off playing fields. Indeed, the Staffordshire Playing Fields Association is still concerned about the extent to which school playing fields have been sold off. It is a disgrace. However, without incentives for teachers, it is not practical to imagine that the quality of sport that is required to give satisfaction and fulfilment to those children will be achieved. Those children must be taught by people who are sufficiently skilled to enable them to do well.
	I have clubs in my constituency that work with schools, including Eccleshall cricket and rugby clubs, Cheadle cricket club and Blythe Bridge. There are so many of them. One of the reasons why Staffordshire was top of the minor counties cricket league for so long was the interaction between Stone cricket club and local children as they grew up and got into clubs.
	There is an interaction between the human spirit and the facilities that are available in a school to generate that competitiveness and a desire to excel. The latter is an essential ingredient and is as important as intellectual achievement. Of course, there are some who manage both—I think of Mike Brearley, who got a double first and a double blue. In a slightly different context, my son played cricket for the Middlesex second XI when he was 16. I heard what the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) said. Look at Richard Hutton and Len Hutton. It is a fact that, in a competitive environment, people can take enormous steps.
	In relation to swimming, life-saving is also an important skill that needs to be cultivated and on which training needs to be provided. Sport gives confidence and builds self-esteem. Those who are not intellectually gifted must be given the opportunity to excel. That is of fundamental importance to the nature of our education. I have already mentioned the excellence of Christ Church middle school's performance in getting to Headingley earlier this year.
	For me, sport has always been fundamental. In fact, at Oxford, I read cricket and history in that order. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to do that and I know that that combination has had an enormous effect on my life, not least on my sense of competition, which is visible in some of my political activities, particularly on the European front. I do not understand how it is possible to be beaten.

Andy Burnham: One question intrigues me. When the Ryder cup is on, whom does the hon. Gentleman support?

William Cash: Jointly and severally.
	There is an element of adventure and risk in sport that needs to be cultivated. This is about human nature, the soul, the way in which people interact with their fellow beings. It is so important. I do not believe that two hours a week is anything like enough. In the 1980s, during my first years in Parliament, I tabled an amendment to the Education Bill calling for the compulsory provision of sport, in consultation with the Central Council of Physical Recreation. There was a lot of correspondence in The Times about it afterwards.
	For the reasons that I have given about the interaction between sport and human nature and the importance of giving people opportunity, sport should be a compulsory provision at school. That is not to say that every person should be driven to do whatever is prescribed but schools must have the necessary facilities. Furthermore, they must have the staff who can teach. If the money has to be found, find it. For the nation, as well as for schools, it is as important that pupils should be able to participate in sport and do well as it is for them to achieve intellectually.

Derek Wyatt: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) on taking up his position. In case the House thinks that peace has broken out, let me explain that our constituencies are coterminous and we often work together.
	Hon. Members have mentioned the Women's Sports Foundation. I am proud to say that I was its founder in 1985, but after the first three meetings I was asked to leave as I was a man. It was an interesting time and I was inspired to do that by Billie Jean King and Donna Verona in America. I am pleased to see how well it is doing.
	Before talking about school sport, one must talk about sport in society. The one weakness in the whole sport debate is that we do not have a think tank for sport. Every other Secretary of State has a think tank. We do not have a Royal Academy for sport. Nearly every other science—chemical, engineering—architecture, theatre and art has a royal body, but sport does not. In this House we can become a fellow for business, a fellow in charity, a policeman and an Army fellow, but we cannot become anything to do with sport. I am pleased to say that we will be announcing a change to that in the new year when we introduce a sports fellowship programme for MPs and peers. Sport is at a disadvantage because it is not in the core culture and it is certainly not in the core culture of politics.
	Time is short, so I shall ask a series of questions. For 20 years, there was a debate inside the Foreign Office about the Department for International Development. Finally, in 1997, we brought it out. That Department now prospers, with a bigger budget than that of the Foreign Office. It is now time that we had our own sport and health education Department because until we have a Secretary of State for sport and health education covering sport education at school, sport in the wider community, the business of sport and the policing of sport, society will not give us the credibility that we need.
	Yesterday, a report on BBC 3 and BBC 4 was published. The £148 million that has been spent on them would buy about 600 primary school swimming pools, yet no one is watching. Could we persuade Ofcom not to provide the three-hour new public sector service, but to create a broadband channel for sport education? We want from the BBC a 24-hour channel on sport education, sport psychology, sport science, sport motivation, sport history—everything to do with sport. That is what we want from a public sector broadcaster and tomorrow is not quick enough. It is appalling to see the lack of interest inside the BBC to service the public need for sport and sport education.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) has left the Chamber. Some premier league rugby and football clubs do the most astonishing work. I am a shareholder and season ticket holder at Charlton Athletic. We do more work than any other professional club in Britain with the disadvantaged, with women, with homework clubs and on race issues. We do not work just in Woolwich or Greenwich; our work extends all the way to the A2. We are starting in Dover and coming up to Sittingbourne.
	People want to rub shoulders with the famous. We need a memorandum of understanding between the great football, rugby league, rugby union and cricket clubs and our county councils to create a sport charter mark that is second to none and covers the areas that I have mentioned. We have to grab sport out of schools. Kelly Holmes is one of Kent's heroes. What are we going to do with her? We should give her a hundred grand for a three-year contract to run round schools. We need a leadership campaign that takes gold, silver and bronze medallists around our schools as part of the scheme. They should form part of the memorandum of understanding and should focus on that.
	We tell our children on their school report cards how bright they are. Could we not also tell them how physically advantaged or disadvantaged they are? Could the report cover step-ups and body fat, how fast the children are over 20 yards? Is there some way that we can tell parents, "The national average is this; your child is minus one. We must try to improve on that"? What about encouraging some sort of affinity card so that we can say, "Look, that gap gets you salsa dancing, quad biking or rifle shooting"? We need to provide incentives to get children back into the system, rather than just saying, "You're fat and awful and you do no exercise."
	For 30 years we have been talking about opening up schools. It is time to stop just talking about it. Let us appoint an overall director of each school and separate head teachers for daytime and for after school, so that schools are not just open from 8 am to 6 pm. I want all my local secondary schools to open until 10, 11 or 12. In Washington DC, where floodlit basketball is the most successful school sport, it starts at 2 in the morning—and it does so in schools that used to close at 5 pm. We have to foster a different mentality about school buildings. The heads are holding things back; they will not let their school building go. Until we appoint a director, and a headmaster or headmistress for the daytime and someone else for the evening, nothing will change.
	Groundsmen are essential. These days, cricket fields have all-weather wickets. That is because, sadly, we got rid of groundsmen and librarians: they were the two categories that fell off school staff. Can the the lottery or the Secretary of State be persuaded to bring back groundsman training in further education colleges? We have hairdressers and plumbers, but we have no groundsmen. We could sponsor something that would change overnight the quality of fields in our secondary schools, which are a disgrace, and which get closed down by health and safety people because they are unsafe. That cycle will go round and round unless we grab it and get the further education people to come round.
	I could go on, but I shall make just two more points. This summer, my local police, Swale police, did something amazing. With their own funds they created an excess energy club for 150 of the poorest in the community, so that every day, at a cost of £3, they could do exactly what they liked to do—exciting, dangerous things. And guess what? Crime is down. But why should the police pay for that, and why did they have to rent the land off a farm? What the hell were the schools doing? We need these partnerships to ensure that the Home Office and schools do this together.
	May I make a radical suggestion? Who knows whether we shall all be here in five years, but if we have this debate then, and if by that time we have not increased the activity of schoolchildren by more than 2 per cent. or 5 per cent., so that 25 per cent. are still not taking activity, why do we not take PE and games out of schools altogether? Why do we not set up pilots, giving the money to rugby, cricket and football clubs to teach schoolchildren? I bet we could get 95 per cent. participation by adopting that very different approach.

Andy Burnham: It has been a fascinating debate. There is rarely a spirit of unity across the House, but for the first time since I have been in this place I have agreed with every word from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), so it was certainly worth being here this afternoon.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) said, we are seeing a lot in the media about the problems of antisocial behaviour teenage obesity. We have a ready-made answer in sport, yet we seem not to exploit it to its full potential. It still has far too low a priority in politics and in public life.
	Before we ask questions of schools, local authorities or anyone else, perhaps we should ask ourselves in this House whether we are doing enough for sport. I would argue that we are not. I checked up before the debate and found that 354 Members list sport of some kind among their interests in "Dod's". Why on earth is that interest not translating into making sport a hard-edged political priority that is backed by investment, with a proper structure underneath it to lever change? That has been done in France, Australia and New Zealand, but it seems to be beyond us.
	We all know that sport is a unifying force like no other in our communities. Leigh Centurians rugby league club in my constituency won a hard-earned promotion to the super league on Sunday night. It will lift our town as nothing else can. It is a fantastic achievement, which will boost participation in our schools, yet we do not recognise the importance of sport enough in terms of funding.
	Having worked in government as a sports adviser for a while, I would argue that a prejudice against sport runs through much of Whitehall. Sport is the poor relation in meetings at the Cabinet Office. Sport is not taken seriously, and that must change. We can change it here if we act together, across the House, when we agree—we do agree on many of these points—to give it greater priority. Let us have some statutory responsibilities to provide high-quality sports facilities. In the cultural sector, councils' only responsibility is to provide a full and comprehensive library service, whereas there should be clear responsibilities to provide good sporting facilities.
	Unlike the arts, sport is seen within government as sufficiently wealthy and with enough volunteers to look after itself. That thinking partly allowed the demise of the sporting infrastructure in this country in the 1980s and '90s. Let us give credit where it is due: John Major introduced the national lottery, which has helped, but it is a drop in the ocean. We need far more investment if we are to make changes.
	Some Opposition Members and those on the right in this country must accept the argument that sport needs investment, but we must accept that sport is about competition. Let us make no apology for the fact that sport encourages competitiveness. That is where its true value is realised; it is how young people learn vital life skills: teamwork; loyalty; discipline; the responsibility that comes with representing their schools and the loyalty that they feel when doing so; performing under pressure; and dealing with winning and losing. Scoring a match-winning penalty or holding a high catch at mid-off is one of the most life-affirming things that they can do at 12 or 13 that is legal, yet those on the liberal left can still be heard arguing against competitive school sport.
	Peter Wilby, editor of the New Statesman, wrote in The Observer Sport Monthly:
	"Organised competitive sport is agony for many children: it can lead to humiliation and indignity."
	Perhaps it does for some children—some children may not like it—but is that an argument for denying it to those who will thrive on it and seek to gain most from it? There is a generation of liberal thinkers in journalism, public life and education who allow their own painful memories of school sport to become a justification to deprive others of it. Many people love sport. As the Minister rightly said—he was spot on—it lifts the self-esteem and self-confidence of some young people who may struggle in the classroom. That is one of its real benefits. So we must confront those arguments head on. We cannot allow the corrosive notion to succeed that competitive sport is in any way controversial to run, and we must do something about that.
	The Government have done a lot—we are definitely moving in the right direction—but I argue that the manifesto should take us a lot further and push sport right up the political agenda. I am afraid that the figures show, regretfully, that sport in this country is far too class based. At the Sydney Olympics, 80 per cent of our medallists went to private schools. Some analysis of the Athens games shows that 40 per cent. of the winners went to private schools. I have nothing against people from private schools, but it cannot be right that the talent of so many young people in our state schools is not coming through. We need to do much better by them. Loth as I am to say it, private schools have shamed some public sector schools in providing quality sporting opportunities.
	In closing, I want to give the Minister a few ideas. What would I do if I had the opportunity and chance to sit where he is sitting? I would expand the entitlement and begin it at primary school, with the competitive, playing-to-win ethos at the very core. I would ensure that children not only have access to inter-school competitive fixtures in the main sports, but the right to receive qualified coaching in them. How many children go through our state system never having been told how to play cricket with a straight bat, how to hold the seam across a cricket ball when they are bowling or how to hit a tennis ball properly? They go through school without ever learning how to do that. That is talent lost to our country.
	Like the hon. Member for Stone, I would go further: let us guarantee three hours of sport in schools and do away with traditional notions about which sports are acceptable. If girls want to play football in school, they should do so, and they should play organised, competitive football in school. Likewise, if boys want to play hockey, they should do so. Whatever the demand, schools should seek to meet it.
	Why do schools let their children go out at lunchtime, cause mayhem on high streets and buy chips and biscuits? Schools should keep children in for the full day and provide a full range of sporting activities in the lunch-hour break, giving their pupils more chances to take part in sport. It seems to be a case of out of sight, out of mind, with people saying, "Off you go. Go and cause trouble somewhere else." Lunchtime activities are part of the solution, but the core of my argument is that we need a vibrant, competitive school league structure in all the main sports, starting from the age of 7, and that schools should be required to provide teams in all those categories.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, let us make sport the personal responsibility of a senior person in schools—perhaps the deputy head or possibly the head teacher. It is too important to be an ad hoc arrangement—something that may happen and may not. Let us make it someone's direct responsibility. Let us have extended Wednesdays, when everyone knows that a whole slate of competitive sports will take place and the school day will continue until 5 or 6 o'clock.
	Let us shatter some of the prejudices. Personally, I would have no problem about boxing being provided in state schools, if there were young people who wanted to do it; it appeals to a particular hard-to-reach group, and has an edge over other sports in terms of personal focus, discipline and fitness. Let us provide what young people want to do. If there is a demand, let us not have hang-ups and prejudices about what is right and what is wrong, but let us provide what they want. Sport must begin at the beginning, with high-quality coaching and a play-to-win ethos from the very bottom of British sport.

Adrian Bailey: I shall make my remarks short, as much of what I wanted to say has already been said by others.
	I welcome the Minister's statement, and the development of a policy that has been overdue for the past 30 years. In another life, I was one of those enthusiastic but inept comprehensive school teachers who ran a football team, and I hate to think how many budding international footballers I must have ruined with my coaching. We must have a far more professional approach, and a recognition that sport is a vital part of education, but also that education is a vital part of sport.
	That is particularly relevant to areas such as mine, where there is a proud sporting tradition, involving not only the fanatical following for West Bromwich Albion and Wolverhampton Wanderers, but athletics, with clubs such as Tipton Harriers. Despite that sporting tradition, there are very low educational aspirations—but we have a sports college, Wood Green high school in Wednesbury, which has brought enormous benefits to the area in both sport and education.
	Someone asked earlier about academic qualifications. Not only is Wood Green high school a sports college, doing great work in linking with the 50 other schools in the local area to raise standards, it is also the highest performing academic school in the borough. There used to be a feeling, especially in the state sector, that schools were either sporting but not academic, or academic but not sporting. That has been totally disproved by our experience, which shows the success of the policy at the grass roots.
	Wood Green high school is also breaking new ground in providing sporting activity before conventional school times for primary school pupils. With the help of the local authority, it is bussing in primary school pupils at 8 o'clock for an hour of PE and lifestyle education, which will not only help them through their lives but will also break down the barrier involved in moving between primary and secondary education.
	Let me say a few words about competition. I love competition in sport, but we must have a broader perspective. We have moved a long way from the historical caricature of sport in schools, with the sadistic schoolteacher humiliating inept schoolboys or schoolgirls—if it ever existed. However, the fact remains that if we force young people to take part in a sport that they are not good at, it undermines their self-confidence and puts them off sport in general.
	We must have not only a sports strategy in schools, but a physical fitness strategy, involving a range of activities. Those who want to play competitive sport and excel in it could do so, but others, who may not want to do that but who want to be fit, to feel on top of things and to have self-esteem, could take part in other activities—even just plain walking—to reach a certain level of physical fitness. I see no reason why schools should not have some measure of the physical fitness of their pupil population, as well as of their academic competence.
	I shall finish with a couple more points. I welcome the Academic Coaches Ensuring Success—ACES—initiative that West Bromwich Albion runs. It is a new scheme, which is designed not for the most under-achieving pupils but for those who have potential and are not fully realising it. It is intended to help them through their GCSEs. It was launched in my borough this week and I await the results with interest.
	I want to underline the problem of the drop-off in young women's participation in active sport in their early teenage years. It requires serious consideration and, if necessary, serious investment in schools to tackle it. In addition, in ethnic minority communities, cultural issues overlay the problem. I simply flag that up to the Under-Secretary as a matter that needs to be addressed.
	When I learned about the target of two hours of PE a week, I could not believe that it was so low and that we are so far behind. However, we are getting there. We have made good progress so far but much remains to be done. I hope that the debate will contribute to that.

Andy Reed: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak, given that I managed to secure an Adjournment debate on the same subject only a few weeks ago, which shows how vital the issue is. Hon. Members wanted our élite athletes to do well in Athens and want them to do well in Beijing—and in London in 2012—but that will not happen unless we begin to generate support for the next group of athletes. Many of those who will compete in Beijing or in London in 2012 are still at school. We still need talent identification to ensure that we provide the right support for athletes at places such as Loughborough so that they are ready to win medals next time around.
	However, mass participation is as crucial as picking the best to become élite athletes. For the majority of us, such participation is vital not only at school but throughout life. We have already heard many examples of the problems of obesity and antisocial behaviour. Sport can tackle that. It has enormous potential to do so much good in this country, yet, as hon. Members have said, we have missed the opportunity.
	Sport has never spoken with a single voice. It has been pushed aside by the arts or other organisations. It is now time for hon. Members who are passionate about sport to convince others in Whitehall and our colleagues who are not present that sport has a vital role to play. We shall do that by building on our current position.
	There is a mish-mash of initiatives and money is coming in. Although it is great that so much is going on, we have had to act in that way because of our starting point in 1997. We inherited a poor picture. I would not have designed the current position, but that is where we are. How can we make it succeed and how can we progress?
	First, we must ensure that teachers have enough experience and time in their initial teacher training to do the basics at primary school. The school-club link is vital for the future. I still kick around—and sometimes catch—a rugby ball on a Saturday afternoon. I play at my local community college, where I have played since I was 18 and at school. I would never have gone away and joined another club. That is most people's experience. If they do not play school sport and do not have the club link, they drift away at 18. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) highlighted a specific problem, especially among girls, of people who drift off much earlier. The drop-off rate at the age of 13 or 14 is significant.
	As Professor Gratton stated in a recent article, if people stop participating by the age of 16, it is much harder to get them to return to the clubs later in life. They do not have the experience or the skills, and returning is a daunting prospect. We need to develop the club link, and that means support for the clubs.
	My club struggles. We have a small committee of people and willing players, but giving up time to do the coaching is difficult. Modernisation and work with national governing bodies is vital to ensure that the coaches, who are fit for the purpose, are in the right place at the right time. It is harder now, because in our day we had cricket and athletics during the summer and football during the winter. Now, however, there is a much greater choice of sports, so the links need to be made not only with the traditional clubs; they need to go much wider. Girls, in particular, have a much greater requirement in this regard. Our talks with the Football Association earlier this year showed how many girls want to play football, for example, yet their chances of doing so at school are limited. The FA is doing a lot of work on this, but the Department for Education and Skills needs to work with it to ensure that girls get that choice.
	I got myself into a bit of trouble following our last debate on these issues, when a local newspaper misquoted me. I had cited an example from the Youth Sport Trust's Nike report, which said that one of the reasons girls were put off sport was that they found it uncool and too sweaty. As hon. Members can imagine, the media had great fun with that, saying that I was accusing all girls of thinking that they were too sweaty. Unfortunately, my Tory opponent jumped on the bandwagon and made a complete fool of herself on the same issue, without even trying to get the facts. We have to recognise, however, that such barriers might exist.

Doug Henderson: My hon. Friend reminds me of an important point that I meant to make. A survey conducted by Sport England showed that about two thirds of young women would rather go dancing than participate in any other sport. Does my hon. Friend agree that dancing is a very valid activity that should be included in any fitness programme?

Andy Reed: Yes, I was about to come to that. We need a wide variety of sports. A lot of girls want to play football, although many are still happy to play traditional sports such as netball or hockey. There is, however, a vast variety of sports out there competing for their attention—basketball, dance and aerobics, for example—and they should all be available.
	With regard to facilities such as changing rooms, many people have now had experience of private clubs and find school facilities inadequate for many of the activities that have been mentioned. That brings me to one of my real bugbears. I really feel passionate about the use of school sports facilities and the idea that we should be able to use them 24/7. We have all stood here and agreed on that in numerous debates, and the Department knows that we all agree on it, yet when I go back to the school where I play rugby every Saturday afternoon, we are the only ones using the facilities there. There are 10 pitches, and there must be 12 or 13 tennis courts, yet we are the only group using the facilities every weekend. It cannot be rocket science for us to put in place a plan to ensure that this improves.
	Sport England is looking at a multi-club approach to providing sport across the communities. Most communities have some form of educational facility. When we look across the water to France, we see the idea of the community stade—which I think most Members quite like—in which lots of clubs use the same facilities. They share the shower and changing facilities, and there are lots of athletics tracks, football pitches and other amenities available. We could do that in the schools that exist in almost every community here. We do not need to reinvent clubs up and down the country. In some cases, it would be difficult, but we just need to take the idea one step further. We need to ensure that there is someone responsible for the programme in each location, working not in isolation with the educational facility but with the county sports partnerships to ensure that facilities are available for all children as near as possible to their homes. We are not that far away from achieving that. Many of the facilities are there, but they are underused at the moment.
	I want to refer briefly to the number of initiatives being undertaken. I recall that, when I became chair of East Midlands Sport, we were in charge of 57 initiatives relating to distributing lottery money, Sport England programmes and other things. Fortunately, that number has been reduced, and Sport England now takes a much more strategic approach. My fear, however, is that we are still generating more initiatives. I have a list of some of them here, which includes the sports colleges, the co-ordinators, the step into sport programme, and club links. Each of these is great on its own, but we have all been in head teachers' offices when they have shown us how much has come in from the Department that week. We need to consolidate many of those initiatives in order to get sport back into schools and get it going.
	I take a slightly different view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on the role of the BBC. The coverage of the Olympics this year was a fine example of how good the BBC can be. That and other facilities such as its website and the sports coaching programmes in which it is involved offer a fine example of why we need to keep as much sport as possible on terrestrial television, so that as many people as possible get to see their sporting heroes. I have not been able to watch a premiership rugby game for several years, because coverage has been sidelined and tucked away on Sky. I am unwilling to pay the £40 a month extra it would cost me to watch a few games. I do not know how many other people are missing out on watching their sporting heroes in cricket, rugby, football and other sports. Without those national sporting heroes, our children do not have an incentive to get out and play sport. I urge those responsible to ensure that our sporting heroes are not seen only on television, but go around schools to encourage the sportspeople of the future.
	I would say to my hon. Friend the Minister, "A lot done, a little way to go; three hours would be better; not 85 per cent., but 100 per cent.; and 2010. Get on with it."

Stephen Twigg: That is quite a challenge. We have had 11 contributions to the debate and I shall do my best to do justice to each of them. I will not be able to respond to every point raised, but I shall happily respond to specific points that I cannot cover now in writing to hon. Members.
	I welcome the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) to his new position on the Front Bench. We have had a constructive debate. I also wish to apologise to the House on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism, who is away on Government business; otherwise, he would certainly have been with us here today.
	Several hon. Members talked about how we can ensure that sport is at the heart of the mission to educate. That is a significant challenge and it sits well with the broader debate about schools policy. I shall return to that point when I answer the challenges posed by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) asked how we can recognise sport and physical activity as being on a par with some of the academic and other achievements of a school. We have consulted people in education and beyond about school profiles, whereby we would not simply define a school's achievement according to academic outcomes, tests and examination results but more broadly according to its performance in sport, the arts and citizenship. Some of the points raised today are relevant to that idea in general. They are also relevant to a consultation that is under way at the moment on how we can build on the successes of the active mark and the sports mark, perhaps through the development of a new sports partnership mark. I encourage hon. Members to participate in that consultation, which will run for another two and a half months, and to engage with schools, clubs and young people in their constituencies on the subject.
	Almost all hon. Members made the point that two hours is a minimum. Some powerful points were made by Members on both sides of the House about the entitlement to much more than two hours. I would like to think of the two hours as a minimum. I have heard what has been said about an increase to three hours, but more important is a broader entitlement for those who want to do much more. That will be necessary if we are to achieve all the different aims we have.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) made the point that the extended—or 24/7, as he put it—school idea is one that has been around for some time. Its time has now come, not only for sport and physical activity, but more broadly. We have an incredible opportunity over the next 10 to 15 years in our secondary schools, through the building schools for the future programme, to provide the best possible facilities right across the curriculum. Facilities for sport and physical education must be a part of that.
	I shall try to address the five points that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent put to me, many of which were reinforced by points made in the rest of the debate. The hon. Gentleman referred to the decline in the teaching of rugby and cricket in schools. The survey that we both mentioned from earlier this year showed that 97 per cent. of schools provided football, unsurprisingly, but that 86 per cent. provided cricket, 67 per cent. provided rugby union and 12 per cent. provided rugby league. I am not saying that those figures are good enough, but they demonstrate what a majority of the state schools surveyed are doing and the difference that the school sport partnerships can make.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about clubs and schools. The links between clubs and schools are vital. Through the school sport partnerships, about one in five young people participate in high-quality club activity, which is a big step in the right direction, although we clearly need to do much more. Other programmes are relevant to those links. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey said about Charlton, as there are some extremely good examples in football, rugby and other sports of links that enhance not only sporting and physical achievement but academic achievement.
	I referred to playing for success. Arsenal's Double Club makes a big difference in London, working with some of the most challenging inner-London schools in Islington and Tower Hamlets. It has a remarkable and proven record of enhancing literacy, numeracy and other basic skills. That is of great importance.
	There has been contention about how much of the lottery money has actually been spent, so I am pleased to be able to assure the House that as of 5 October grants totalling £446 million have been awarded. That means that 2,000 new facilities have been given the green light; 127 are already completed and open, and a further 595 are on site. It is fair to say that the money was not spent quickly, but I would rather we spent it well than spent it quickly. I am confident that the programme is on course and that the vast majority of projects will be completed between this year and 2006, as was always envisaged.
	Playing fields were mentioned several times during the debate. With the recent announcement to which I referred in my opening remarks, we seek to strengthen the available guidance and protection. In the last two years, 90 per cent. of the approved planning applications relating to playing fields have led to the provision of better sport facilities, or have left sport facilities unaffected. Over that two-year period, the approved planning applications for playing fields have led to an investment of almost £540 million in new sport facilities. We have allowed the loss of only 148 school playing field areas since 1997, 60 of which were at schools that were closing. In all cases, the proceeds were used to provide better sport or educational facilities for schools—most of them for sport. I shall come to the specific points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) in a moment.
	Voluntary organisations, such as the National Playing Fields Association and the Central Council of Physical Recreation, raised serious concerns about the number of playing fields that were sold in the 1980s and early 1990s. That is why we legislated and, more recently, acted as I described to strengthen the follow-up from the legislation.
	The fourth point made by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent was about red tape, which poses a serious challenge. Work force reform is an opportunity for other professionals to go into the classroom and support good sport education. The implementation review unit is at the heart of the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that we minimise unnecessary bureaucracy and the burdens it can bring for schools. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about his fifth point on legal protection.
	In the remaining minute and a half, I shall pay tribute to the other speeches in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) and the hon. Member for Colchester, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, made powerful points about the importance of enjoyment as well as excellence in education. That is certainly reflected in developing policy, not simply on sport and physical education but more broadly.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) made an interesting suggestion about a deputy head having specific responsibility to lead on matters of sport. I shall discuss that further in the Department and with colleagues.
	The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) paid tribute to the two specialist schools in her constituency. I am happy to associate myself with her remarks.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw invited me to meet objectors to a proposal. I shall be happy to meet him and some of his constituents to discuss that, but for reasons of balance I shall then have to meet people who hold the opposing point of view.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made a thoughtful speech, with which everyone in the House could agree. I have already responded to several of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham), for West Bromwich, West and for Loughborough are closely associated with the issue and raised significant points. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West asked how we can ensure that physical fitness is at the heart of what schools do. I would like—
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITION
	 — 
	Crowlands Junior School

Andrew Rosindell: I rise on behalf of no fewer than 264 of my constituents who send their children to school in, or reside in, the Crowlands and London road area of Romford. They have collected the petition to ask the House of Commons to take urgent action to ensure that adequate numbers of secondary school places are made available for children who attend Crowlands junior school. They find it unacceptable that so few such places are made available for the community and that schools do not ensure that sufficient places are available so that every child and parent can have a free choice of schools.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of Parents of pupils of Crowlands Junior School
	Declares that there are not enough secondary school places in the Crowlands and London Road area of Romford to accommodate pupils who leave Crowlands Junior School. This results in children from the area having to take left over places from distant schools instead of being given a proper choice.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Secretary of State for education to ensure that all parents in the area have the choice of quality education at secondary level in the local community.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

MEDICINAL CANNABIS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Peter Bradley: I cannot claim to be an expert on science, and much less so on pharmacology. I also accept the precautionary principle in the licensing of medicine, especially for new drugs about which insufficient is known or those on which there is room for significant doubt about their safety or efficacy. However, an exceptional case can be made for medicinal cannabis for reasons on which I shall elaborate. The art of good government is to know when to exercise compassion and discretion, and there is no more a pressing need for that than when its object is to relieve pain and suffering, which is the case that I shall make today.
	I became involved in the campaign to legalise medicinal cannabis when my constituent, Kate Bradley, who is no relation, visited my surgery four or five years ago. Her story is compelling and poignant. In earlier years, she was a drug squad officer with West Midlands police until she took medical retirement. She was subsequently diagnosed as suffering with multiple sclerosis. Prescription medicines do not work for her, and she cannot legally obtain the one medicine that does work—cannabis. She is forced to procure what she regards as her medicine in her wheelchair on the streets from the kind of people whom she was locking up a few years ago.
	The problem is not that Kate Bradley fears arrest, because I do not think that that is a significant risk, but that she cannot obtain a suitable supply of her medicine. In addition to the physical torment that MS visits on her, she suffers bitter humiliation. She and thousands of others do not wish to break the law, but what choice do they have when the only medicine that relieves the pain that they suffer is placed beyond their reach?
	My concern is not about the Government's approach, because Ministers have been sympathetic. They are not unwilling to find a solution to the difficult problem, and I cannot believe that they are unable to do so. When I first raised the matter with the Department of Health in a parliamentary question in January 2001, it was confirmed that trials were under way on the GW Pharmaceuticals product Sativex, and that a report was expected in 2003.
	There was a major step forward in October 2001 when, in reply to a further question of mine, a Home Office Minister confirmed:
	"the Home Secretary has made it clear that if a product licence is recommended by the Medicines Control Agency he would approve the necessary changes to the Misuse of Drugs legislation. These changes can be made swiftly".—[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 500W.]
	That was encouraging, but since then progress has been painfully slow. We expected approvals by the end of 2003, perhaps with medicinal cannabis on the market by now, but on 3 November last year the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), told me:
	"The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency",
	which had succeeded the MCA,
	"has yet to complete its evaluation of the safety, quality and effectiveness of the medical preparation of a cannabis-based drug developed and tested by GW Pharmaceuticals."—[Official Report, 3 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 708.]
	She went on to assure me that once marketing approval had been received, the Government would act quickly to ensure that the necessary changes were made to legislation.
	The Minister then wrote to me on 12 May to tell me of a further setback in the process and that the MHRA had asked for further evidence from GW Pharmaceuticals. I stress that I am not criticising the Minister or, for that matter, the MHRA. They are doing things by the book. However, while delay follows delay, patients with MS are suffering and that suffering is unnecessary.

Martin Salter: I endorse every jot of my hon. Friend's case. Does he agree that there is a danger that with Parliament and the Home Office downgrading the recreational use of cannabis from a class B to a class C drug, unless action is forthcoming quickly MS patients and others who require the medicinal use of cannabis will resent the fact that the Government can take action on the drug in respect of its recreational use but drag their feet when it comes to its medicinal use?

Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend anticipates my case and, indeed, makes it for me. He will forgive me if I do not respond immediately, because it will become clear that I agree with him.
	Earlier this summer, Kate Bradley sent me an e-mail, which makes the case on its own. She said:
	"The spasms I suffer are sheer hell. From the soles of my feet all through my body into my brain is a searing, crippling, unholy pain. It is so powerful it can force my body to crunch into a foetal position one moment and switch to plank-like rigidity the next. Only cannabis unlocks them. Following this my legs are then attacked by pain akin to that of a blow torch burning my skin off. Cannabis is the only relief from this too. There is nothing orthodox medicine can do. Only cannabis helps. The government has said that if its medical advisers give the go-ahead, it will legalise medicinal cannabis and that's been very encouraging. But the waiting is almost too much to bear."
	Kate Bradley is not alone. According to the MS Society:
	"in a recent survey of 100 patients, 43 per cent. said they used cannabis. Of the people who said they have never used it, 76 per cent. said they would do so if the drug were not illegal".
	I do not want to make statistical claims that are too strong, but based on that survey, my calculations suggest that of 85,000 MS sufferers more than 36,000 will have used medicinal cannabis—albeit illegally—and a further 36,000 would have used it if were it legal. That adds up to 86 per cent. of all those people who suffer from MS. So 86 per cent. of them believe that cannabis could relieve their symptoms.
	This prompts the question of why patients should have to choose between controlling their pain and breaking the law. That is why I asked the Minister in the summer whether, pending the approval from the MHRA, the Government would allow the limited and controlled cultivation, and dependable quality monitoring, of cannabis for those for whom their GPs prescribe it, which is the arrangement in Canada.
	In repeating that call tonight, I believe that I have a simpler and much more acceptable proposition, which I shall come on to.
	I said earlier that an exceptional case can be made for the legalisation of medicinal cannabis. A huge amount, for example, is already known about the drug's medicinal qualities and properties as well as its side effects. It has been in use as a therapy for 5,000 years. Queen Victoria used it as a tincture, and it has properties as an analgesic, anti-emetic and appetite stimulant. MS is the principal condition that it can alleviate, but it has also been argued that it can help patients suffering from AIDS, arthritis, cancer, chronic pain, epilepsy, glaucoma, menstrual and labour pain and migraine. Recent research by Dr. John Zajicek of the Peninsular Medical School in Devon suggests that it may not simply relieve the symptoms of MS but arrest them.
	There is a dispute about the side effects of medicinal cannabis, and some people believe that it contributes to memory loss. Those side effects, however, are unlikely to be significant and I doubt that much will be discovered now that has not been known for many hundreds of years. Alternative pain treatments are far more harmful and, in some cases, dangerous than cannabis. Some, for example, can damage the liver severely. A single overdose of morphine can kill. There is no recorded death from cannabis—at least, I am not aware of one—in the past 100 years, and I have been advised that someone has to take many thousand times the normal dose of cannabis to die from its toxicity.
	Cannabis is legal in Canada and eight US states. A growing body of opinion in the UK supports its legalisation here. The MS Society said:
	"On the evidence now available . . . those who might benefit should have treatment prescribed on the NHS".
	The British Medical Association says that
	"the law should be changed to allow the therapeutic use of cannabis",
	although it wants further research to isolate its therapeutic properties. The Lancet said that
	"it would be reasonable to judge cannabis less of a threat than alcohol or tobacco".
	Indeed, before it stopped taking the drugs, the Daily Express said in an editorial on 10 January 2001:
	"The Government must legalise the use of cannabis for medical purposes immediately. Otherwise we are going to get many more instances where normally law-abiding citizens are forced to go to the criminal underworld to get the one drug that can help relieve a devastating medical condition."
	A growing number of medical practitioners share that view. I recently received a letter from Paul Davies, a consultant neurologist at Northampton general hospital, who has been involved in the trialling of GW Pharmaceuticals' new product Sativex, a spray that is applied under the tongue. He said:
	"I have seen some very beneficial effects of this drug in some of my patients. Of course there have been others who have not been helped, and we have had a few side effects but none has been serious. My own judgement based on experience and available data to date, is that Sativex is a safe drug and can be very helpful to treat symptoms in patients with multiple sclerosis, who have not obtained benefit from currently licensed products."
	Dr. William Notcutt of the James Paget hospital in Great Yarmouth has campaigned to have medicinal cannabis recognised for 10 years or so, and I pay tribute to him for helping me to develop my knowledge and views. He told me that
	"when patients ask why they cannot be prescribed what they know will relieve their pain and will most likely be more effective and less harmful than what they are currently taking, I simply have no answer for them. It is a matter of common sense as well as humanity that medicinal cannabis should be made available to patients whose doctors wish to prescribe it and without further delay".
	Patients who participated in the recent trials were lucky, as medicinal cannabis worked for 80 per cent. of them. In September, the Home Office agreed to license the continuing prescription of the drug to more than 500 of those patients. That enlightened decision prompts the question—why, if they are allowed access to a pain-relieving drug, cannot the other 85,000 people with MS, whose problems and pain are just as bad, receive it?
	Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said, recreational cannabis was recently reclassified from class B to class C, medicinal cannabis remains on schedule 1 under the misuse of drugs regulations. It is grouped with LSD and ecstasy in schedule 1 as a drug with no medicinal value, which is patently absurd given cannabis's 500-year history as a therapy, and schedule 2 includes drugs that are far more dangerous than cannabis such as morphine, heroin and cocaine.
	If cannabis were in schedule 2, or for that matter any other schedule, GPs and other doctors could legally prescribe it even if it were not approved by the MHRA, which happens with many other well known, often used and perfectly safe drugs under MCA guidance note 14. Despite cannabis's known therapeutic value, it cannot be prescribed, which is nonsensical. It was removed from the British formulary comparatively recently—1971—and I simply ask for its restoration to the position that it occupied for many hundreds of years.
	It is only in the past few decades that cannabis, a drug which has been used as a medicine for 5,000 years, has become associated with recreational abuse, but most therapeutic drugs can be abused. Tranquillisers such as Valium and diazepam, hypnotics such as Temazepam and painkillers are frequently abused, but there is no question of banning them. If all drugs that could be and are abused were banned, few medicines would be left in the cabinet. The argument is that cannabis, which has become known as a recreational drug, also has medicinal properties and arguably greater benefits and less dangerous side effects than drugs that are in common use. It should not be proscribed; it should be prescribed.
	MS patients are suffering because we have a hang-up about the 1960s. The generation that grew up with recreational cannabis should not deny patients access to cannabis's medicinal properties. The solution is simple: we should apply to cannabis the same exemption as already applies to many other treatments under the MCA guidance note of February 2000, which is entitled, "The Supply of Unlicensed Relevant Medicinal Products for Individual Patients." If cannabis were exempt, doctors could prescribe to individual named patients who, in their professional opinion, would benefit from it, which is, as I said, already common practice—cannabis could not be marketed until it received its approval.
	In making that plea, I simply echo the recommendations made some time ago by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. In 1998, in a report on the scientific and medical evidence about cannabis, it said:
	"the Government should take steps to transfer cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations to Schedule 2, so as to allow doctors to prescribe an appropriate preparation of cannabis, albeit as an unlicensed medicine and on the named-patient basis, and to allow doctors and pharmacists to supply the drug prescribed."
	Three years later, the follow-up report criticised the "excessive and disproportionate caution" on the part of the MCA:
	"Patients with severe conditions such as multiple sclerosis are being denied the right to make informed choices about their medication. There is always some risk in taking any medication; patients and their doctors should certainly be informed about toxicological concerns that the MCA have raised, but these concerns should not prevent them from having access to what promises to be the only medication available to them."
	Often, I do not agree with the views of the House of Lords—certainly not over the past few days—but I certainly agree with it on that matter, as do some 50 MPs from all parties who have signed my early-day motion calling for the legalisation of controlled cannabis for medicinal use.
	Let patients make their own informed decisions whether the risk from the only relief from their excruciating pain represents a greater threat to their health and well-being than the disease from which they suffer. Who are we, as politicians, to stand between people suffering torments that we cannot imagine and the medicines that they need to make their lives tolerable?
	My original plea to the Minister was to allow the production and prescription of herbal cannabis for therapeutic uses, but since then GW Pharmaceuticals has conducted successful trials, and the Home Office has granted a licence to prescribe to participants. It would be a small step to act out of common sense and compassion and move medicinal cannabis to schedule 2 of the regulations so that doctors can prescribe more widely on a named-patient basis as MCA guidance note 14 allows. As I said at the outset, the hallmark of a good Government is that they know the difference between the done thing and the right thing, and I hope that my faith will be supported by my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks.

Caroline Flint: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) on securing this debate. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who is a patron of the Berkshire multiple sclerosis therapy centre, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who takes a keen interest in all issues to do with drugs.
	I welcome my hon. Friend's acknowledgement that the Government are committed, both through the Department of Health and the Home Office, to take the necessary procedures to ensure that if a suitable product derived from cannabis can be licensed, it can be provided as a product for people suffering from illnesses that mean that they would benefit from such a drug.
	The medicinal use of cannabis is a cross-party issue, as has been clearly shown by the support that my hon. Friend has received for his early-day motions. The Government, too, would like to contribute to easing the plight of those with debilitating illnesses such as multiple sclerosis and other intractable, painful conditions by bringing to their assistance whatever relief is to be had as a result of an appropriate medicinal use of the drug.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the reclassification of cannabis, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West. We should be clear that we reclassified cannabis to class C not because it is not a harmful drug, but because it is not as harmful as drugs in classes A and B.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she should not turn her back permanently on the Chair. That also has the practical defect of taking her voice away from the microphone.

Caroline Flint: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Cannabis was reclassified to class C because it is relatively less harmful than drugs in classes A and B. Since reclassification, we have been very conscious of lobbying from organisations linked to mental health and to young people as regards the problems associated with cannabis in several different forms. Cannabis is not a harmless drug, and we must be aware of that when we discuss its relationship with products derived from cannabis that could be used for medicinal purposes.
	The Government have been clear and consistent in our position on the medicinal use of cannabis. I confirm again that we are prepared to license a medicine should it get the go-ahead from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—the MHRA. As we have heard, it has been assessing an application made by GW Pharmaceuticals for its cannabis-based product, Sativex. Like my hon. Friend, I hope that there can be a safe and speedy resolution of that application so that we know exactly where we stand on this issue. I understand his and others' disappointment about the time that it has taken to reach a decision. Discussions between the MHRA and GW Pharmaceuticals are ongoing. Obviously, the details of this particular application are commercially sensitive, but we hope that a conclusion will arrive sooner rather than later.
	The MHRA has a responsibility to ensure that all medicines meet the required standards of safety, quality and efficacy before they are granted a market authorisation. Those standards are laid down in European pharmaceutical legislation, so this is not an area that allows for unfettered flexibility. Applicants have to demonstrate that they can produce the product repeatedly to a consistent standard and that it is stable. The MHRA is an Executive agency of the Department of Health, not part of the Home Office, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on how it reaches its decisions in any particular case. However, a cannabis-based medicine, like any other prospective medicinal product, can be granted a marketing authorisation for medical purposes only when sufficient data have been submitted to demonstrate that the product is satisfactory for the intended use.
	This evening, my hon. Friend has called on the Government to place cannabis-based medicine in schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. In an early-day motion in July, he also argued for authorising the controlled production and prescription of cannabis itself for medicinal use. Although I understand the motivations behind those two demands and am sympathetic to them, it is difficult for the Government to support those proposals.
	It would not be appropriate to circumvent or undermine the well-established process attached to the evaluation of the safety, quality and effectiveness of all products that are prospectively prescribable by the MHRA. That process is designed to protect public health.
	Comment has been made on why cannabis cannot be moved to schedule 2, like heroin and cocaine, so that GPs may prescribe it on a named-patient basis. Heroin and cocaine may be prescribed under the Misuse of Drugs (Supply to Addicts) Regulations 1997, but in very restricted circumstances in the treatment of addiction where a person has become so dependent on the drug that he has an overwhelming desire for its administration to be continued. I should add that, because of this issue, we are looking into other areas involving the prescription of heroin. We have a number of pilots under way.
	I do not think that there is a real parallel with the prescription of raw cannabis for therapeutic purposes. The transfer of cannabis from schedule 1 to schedule 2 of the regulations on a named-patient basis would enable the substance's lawful prescription. However, allowing the prescription of raw cannabis of uncertain quality and strength as a medicine would seriously blur the distinction between misuse and therapeutic use. It might create its own health problems. For example, it would usually be smoked and there is no guarantee that those who suffer from severe illnesses such as multiple sclerosis would get access to the quality of product that would bring them relief, so we do not intend to depart from our consistent, long-standing stance of reliance on the role of the MHRA.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the idea of Sativex being included in schedule 2 as well, but, as I have said, it is undergoing an assessment as a product for use by the agency. We do not think, therefore, that at this stage it would be right or suitable to undermine that process.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned that patients who were on the GW Pharmaceuticals trials and have benefited from Sativex are being continued on that medication on a compassionate basis and for free by the company, pending the MHRA's decision. However, I should make it clear that they are being provided not with raw cannabis, but with a product that is inhaled—a derivative of cannabis.
	We supported that position because we thought it was the right thing to do, given the nature of the trial. Therefore, I am afraid to say that I must disappoint my hon. Friend this evening because we think it would be wholly premature to move a cannabis-based medicine to schedule 2 now.

Peter Bradley: Will my hon. Friend explain why, if it is acceptable for the 500 patients who participated in the trials to have Sativex on an exemption from schedule 1, it is not possible to extend that to those whose symptoms are just as distressing and painful, pending the conclusion of the MHRA process?

Caroline Flint: There are a number of reasons for that. First, to trial a drug we have to pilot it with a group of people in the first instance. Therefore, there are clear boundaries within which that trial can take place, which are overseen by the company and those who have been part of that pilot.
	To place the medicine in schedule 2 at this stage would raise issues about the role of general practitioners, the schedules that needed to be changed, funding, the number of people who may come forward for treatment, and how that would operate in practice—there would be all sorts of issues in terms of practicality. However, first and foremost, even though people have had the product as part of a trial, we should not give the green light to something that has yet to receive its full licence. I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from but, under the circumstances, the reasons I have outlined do stand. We hope that there is a speedy conclusion to the agency's investigation into Sativex as a possible solution to many people's pain.
	I understand the sentiments of hon. Members on this matter. Anyone who has had a relative suffering from an illness such as multiple sclerosis naturally wishes them to have relief as soon as possible but, in terms of my hon. Friend's suggestion, in this situation, we do not think that it is right to set a precedent with regard to schedule 2.
	Having said that, I recognise how important the issue is to many people. We want it to be resolved as quickly as possible, so I offer my hon. Friend a meeting with me and Lord Warner, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, to see what can be done to bring the issue to a conclusion more quickly.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.